-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 39
improve constraints file output #299
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
improve constraints file output #299
Conversation
|
Some sample output for the command using a build graph for instructlab: And the constraints |
e68ba0d to
b370867
Compare
b370867 to
137a015
Compare
137a015 to
fc2ff30
Compare
shubhbapna
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks pretty good! I think later we can refactor and create a separate graph module that handles some of the graph operations and the related data types
tiran
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good work! I have added some minor suggestions around reporting and logging.
fc2ff30 to
9da2c92
Compare
9da2c92 to
5140d07
Compare
Use the graph data to try to resolve duplicate entries in the constraints file by looking for any known version that meets all of the requirements of all parent dependencies.
We no longer need the commands for looking at duplicates in the build-order (graph explain-duplicates replaces that) or for creating a graph from the build-order.
Add a command to convert a graph file to installation constraints and a command to explain why there are duplicate versions of an installation dependency in the graph file.
5140d07 to
03ea419
Compare
shubhbapna
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
just a nit pick, otherwise LGTM! Will wait for final approval from @tiran
rd4398
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good!
I will wait for other reviewers to approve and merge.
Work harder to produce a unique list of constraints that meet all of
our requirements.