Address issue #4675: fix Git.check_version() #4676
Conversation
cjerdonek
changed the title
|
Is this still a WIP? |
|
Thanks, yes. I noticed something I want to fix before having this considered. I'll remove "WIP" when ready. |
pradyunsg
added
type: enhancement
|
Hello! I am an automated bot and I have noticed that this pull request is not currently able to be merged. If you are able to either merge the |
cjerdonek
force-pushed
the
issue-4675-fix-check-version
branch
from
26266b8
to
9b8a84f
Compare
cjerdonek
changed the title
|
Since PR #4707 was merged, I was able to finish working on this. So I removed the "WIP" prefix. |
tests/unit/test_vcs.py
Outdated
| assert git.check_version('foo', rev_options) is result | ||
| def test_git_does_commit_id_equal(git, rev_name, result): | ||
| """ | ||
| Test Git.does_commit_id_equal(). |
|
Thanks, @pradyunsg! Updated. :) |
| # Then avoid an unnecessary subprocess call. | ||
| return False | ||
|
|
||
| return self.get_revision(dest) == name |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't like the fact that 2b466712a067a171e8d5a0fe6210e004cfe103a8 won't be equal to 2b466712a.
Would self.get_revision(dest) == self.run_command(['rev-parse',name], show_stdout=False, cwd=location work ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After thinking some more I guess the point of this PR is that 2b466712a could also be the name of a branch so my remark is moot.
If one wants to avoid an useless update, one should specify the whole commit hash. An additionnal note in https://pip.pypa.io/en/stable/reference/pip_install/#git might be welcome :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But the thing you're checking is user-supplied, and requiring people to provide a full hash is pretty user-unfriendly. We should match git's behaviour (which is to allow prefixes as long as they don't match a branch or tag, as I understand it).
Disclaimer: I've never used this feature, and don't anticipate a need to. So if people who actually use it are happy with requiring a full hash, then their opinions should override mine.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[Replying to @xavfernandez] Right. For example, if you look at the original docstring, you'll see that the function isn't ever supposed to return True for branches or tags. A more realistic example might be an integer tag like "10". An accidental SHA prefix match could cause the tag not to be installed.
Specifying a SHA prefix should still work to install a SHA. It just won't incorrectly "shadow" a branch or tag, which is what this PR addresses.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@pfmoore Providing a partial SHA still works. The user isn't required to provide a full hash. This PR just addresses an optimization code path. The optimization was implemented not quite correctly. It was implemented so that if a user specified a tag that accidentally matches the beginning of a SHA, the tag wouldn't get installed (because the optimization bypasses fetching new tags).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@pfmoore specifying a short hash will still work but pip will update the source in this case instead of assuming equality.
Cf https://gist.github.com/xavfernandez/47ac526e0c6bd0ada872deba2c3c2c05 for the difference between pip 9.0.1 and this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for taking the time to do those examples, @xavfernandez.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No problem, if @pfmoore agrees I'd say the only thing missing before merging would be a small note in https://github.com/pypa/pip/blob/master/docs/reference/pip_install.rst#git if it's not too much to ask :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, would be happy to do that. I'll see if I can do that now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for clarifying, yes I'm happy for this to go in with the note as requested.
This was suggested by @xavfernandez in the review comments.
cjerdonek
force-pushed
the
issue-4675-fix-check-version
branch
from
4fcc2ae
to
cf23b06
Compare
|
Okay, I just rebased and added the note to the docs as requested. Let me know if you want the wording to be adjusted at all. |
|
Thanks 👍 ✨ |
|
This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
lock
bot
added
the
auto-locked
This addresses issue #4675.