Ease SageNB development by providing hg commands, and extracting packages to /devel

[TimDumol]

Jason Grout commented on #9822 about the relative difficulty/inconvenience of developing and applying patches for SageNB as compared to Sage. This ticket should fix it.

CC: @jasongrout @kcrisman

Component: notebook

Author: Tim Dumol

Reviewer: Jason Grout

Merged: sagenb-0.8.4

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/9920

[TimDumol]

Attachment: trac_9920-sagenb-package-extraction.patch.gz

SageNB package. Extracts SageNB to $SAGE_ROOT/devel/ for ease of use.

[TimDumol]

Attachment: trac_9920-sagelib-hg.patch.gz

Sage main library. Adds hg_sagenb.

[TimDumol]

Author: Tim Dumol

[TimDumol]

comment:1

Patches attached.

[jasongrout]

comment:2

Does this mean that I should be using spkg-dist to make the spkg, instead of sage -spkg?

Also, does this set things up so that changes are reflected in the running notebook server? It seems that the spkg-dist just copies the hg repository there, but the notebook install is completely different.

[TimDumol]

Attachment: trac_9920-sagenb-package-extraction.2.patch.gz

Puts the "$SAGE_ROOT/devel/sagenb" in develop mode.

[TimDumol]

comment:3

Replying to @jasongrout:

Does this mean that I should be using spkg-dist to make the spkg, instead of sage -spkg?

Yes. That has been the case for a long time (c.f. SPKG.txt)

Also, does this set things up so that changes are reflected in the running notebook server? It seems that the spkg-dist just copies the hg repository there, but the notebook install is completely different.

I neglected to add that. Thanks for the notification. This new patch should fix it.

[jasongrout]

comment:4

Very nice! This seems to work well.

[jasongrout]

Reviewer: Jason Grout

[jasongrout]

comment:5

I'll start reviewing more notebook patches when this spkg is incorporated into sage!

[qed777]

comment:6

The extcode, sage_scripts, and sage packages use Mercurial in their spkg-installs to merge changes into an existing repository. This could be more efficient than copying every file every time. Can we do that here?

Does the new spkg-install now install SageNB two places, under site-packages and devel? Is it practical to do just the latter?

[jasongrout]

comment:7

Replying to @qed777:

The extcode, sage_scripts, and sage packages use Mercurial in their spkg-installs to merge changes into an existing repository. This could be more efficient than copying every file every time. Can we do that here?

Can we make a new ticket for that?

In fact, I like this approach better (backup and copy), since it plays nicely with patch queues. The merge approach messes everything up if you forgot to pop all of your patches off.

Does the new spkg-install now install SageNB two places, under site-packages and devel? Is it practical to do just the latter?

No, I don't think it installs twice (you can check the files to make sure). The setup.py develop installs under $SAGE_ROOT/devel/ and changes the site-packages folder to refer to that location.

[TimDumol]

comment:8

Replying to @jasongrout:

Replying to @qed777:

The extcode, sage_scripts, and sage packages use Mercurial in their spkg-installs to merge changes into an existing repository. This could be more efficient than copying every file every time. Can we do that here?

Can we make a new ticket for that?

In fact, I like this approach better (backup and copy), since it plays nicely with patch queues. The merge approach messes everything up if you forgot to pop all of your patches off.

I agree with Jason.

Does the new spkg-install now install SageNB two places, under site-packages and devel? Is it practical to do just the latter?

No, I don't think it installs twice (you can check the files to make sure). The setup.py develop installs under $SAGE_ROOT/devel/ and changes the site-packages folder to refer to that location.

Actually, it does, but doing so is needed for the docs to show (static docs). We can make another ticket for that.

[jasongrout]

comment:10

I think both questions were answered, so I'm setting this back to positive review. It would be fantastic if it were included in the sagenb package for the next release.

[jhpalmieri]

comment:12

By the way, another issue for another ticket: updating the developer's guide to include sagenb in the list of Mercurial repositories.

[qed777]

comment:13

Sounds good. Thanks for the information. I'll add this to SageNB 0.8.4 at #10036.

[qed777]

Merged: sagenb-0.8.4

[qed777]

comment:16

There's a problem with compiling from scratch, because $SAGE_ROOT/devel does not exist when sagenb-*.spkg is installed. I think doing mkdir -p will be enough.

Can someone add a new patch to fix this?

[qed777]

Make $SAGE_ROOT/devel on install, if necessary. Apply on top of package extraction patch.

[qed777]

comment:17

Attachment: trac_9920-devel_dir_fix.patch.gz

I've added a patch that I'm testing now.

[qed777]

comment:18

Replying to @qed777:

I've added a patch that I'm testing now.

It works.

[qed777]

comment:19

I think we'll need to open a new ticket for making this link

ln -sf "$SAGE_ROOT/devel/sagenb-main" "$SAGE_ROOT/devel/sagenb" 

relative. Otherwise, Sage won't start after I move/rename the root directory.

[qed777]

comment:20

And maybe also add python setup.py develop to SAGE_LOCAL/bin/sage-location?

[qed777]

comment:21

Replying to @qed777:

And maybe also add python setup.py develop to SAGE_LOCAL/bin/sage-location?

See #10097.