Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Pin Pygments to specific version #1916

Closed
justinmayer opened this issue Feb 19, 2016 · 3 comments
Closed

Pin Pygments to specific version #1916

justinmayer opened this issue Feb 19, 2016 · 3 comments
Milestone

Comments

@justinmayer
Copy link
Member

Recent updates have caused test failures, so perhaps we should pin this particular dependency.

@justinmayer justinmayer added this to the 3.7 milestone Feb 19, 2016
@naturallymitchell
Copy link
Contributor

Where'd the problem come from? If a recent change in Pygments caused it, how did devs there not catch it before pushing it downstream, at least without a 'change notice'; perhaps someone more familiar can dig into it? Is #1901 related (ping @nckx )? ..Pygments development looks surprisingly active.

@avaris
Copy link
Member

avaris commented Feb 26, 2016

Yes, #1901 is related. Problem is caused by Pygments producing different output than the previous one in the last two releases (2.1 and 2.1.1). This causes false negatives in pelican tests since the pre-generated outputs don't match the new ones. I don't know if generating consistent output is a goal in Pygments development, so this may or may not be an issue in their eyes.

@ingwinlu
Copy link
Contributor

fixing the pygments version used for tests makes sense.

justinmayer added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 27, 2016
Pin Pygments version to 2.1.3. Fixes #1916
rjames86 pushed a commit to rjames86/pelican that referenced this issue Oct 3, 2016
rjames86 pushed a commit to rjames86/pelican that referenced this issue Oct 3, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants