which_package to yield unique collection of package records
#5108
Conversation
conda-bot
added
the
cla-signed
kenodegard
force-pushed
the
reduce-which_package
branch
from
8812608
to
f955083
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
gh-5041 actually had two related regressions:
- The one fixed here.
conda_build.post._lookup_in_prefix_packagesis nowprinting aList[PrefixRecord]which means it printsrepr(PrefixRecord)that have allPathDataetc. expanded (leading to very verbose logs with sometimes >1M characters per line).
_lookup_in_prefix_packages needs to be changed to print(..., [str(record) for record in precs_in_reqs], ...) or the like.
| for file in prec["files"]: | ||
| if samefile(prefix / file, path): | ||
| yield prec | ||
| if any(samefile(prefix / file, path) for file in prec["files"]): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(n * m) ? I see this version skips work if true.
Too bad to iterate over all installed files to do the search
There was a problem hiding this comment.
worst case yes, same as before
any returns on the first True: https://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html#any
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is what avoids the duplicated records to begin with, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In a subsequent PR, we could see if implementing a cached path -> artifact map would speed this up. It can be a veeery slow part of the post processing stage in conda-build.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is what avoids the duplicated records to begin with, right?
correct, this is essentially what was happening pre #5041:
conda-build/conda_build/inspect_pkg.py
Lines 57 to 62 in c71c4ab
cached
path -> artifactmap
definitely something to consider
| "{}: {} found in {}{}".format( | ||
| msg_prelude, n_dso_p, [prec.name for prec in precs], and_also | ||
| ), | ||
| f"{msg_prelude}: {n_dso_p} found in {[str(prec) for prec in precs]}{and_also}", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This upgrades from name to the full str representation. i.e. from python to defaults::python-3.12.0-h123abc_0, I think? Is that intentional?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, this is now more detailed (but still less verbose than str(precs)) than before
the change was inspired by the fix below on line 1214-1215, where precs_in_reqs: List[PackageRecord] was cast to string resulting in a very verbose output, see #5108 (review)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's good that this is now more consistent with the full spec which was already output at https://github.com/conda/conda-build/pull/5108/files#diff-5073339a2e88f80714f82a001af334869aa5df9627b2f00ffd18d7a2035f537eR1190 .
|
Do we need to de-dup in line 1180 in precs = list(which_package(in_prefix_dso, run_prefix)) |
|
@jaimergp AFAIK no deduping is needed once we merge this PR, with the modifications in |
| " (likely) or a missing dependency (less likely)".format( | ||
| msg_prelude, [prec.name for prec in precs] | ||
| ), | ||
| f"{msg_prelude}: .. but {[str(prec) for prec in precs]} not in reqs/run, " |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Although I find the change to use str(prec) in the len(precs_in_reqs) == 0 and len(precs) > 0 case above a welcome change, one could argue that we might only want to output the name here so users get a more succinct "you might've missed package in run requirements" message.
But I don't have a strong opinion on this one.
Co-authored-by: Marcel Bargull <mbargull@users.noreply.github.com>
Description
The refactor of
which_packageaccidentally resulted in the same package record being returned multiple times (once for each file collision). This results in misleading build warnings.Instead we only want to return a unique set of package records.
Resolves #5106
Checklist - did you ...
newsdirectory (using the template) for the next release's release notes?Add / update outdated documentation?