-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
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
Use Upstream of tools-python, Not Fork #30
Comments
@nicoweidner @meretp @armintaenzertng Any suggestions? |
The fork was last updated in August, so is quite out of date by now (since a lot of things happened in the meantime). I looked at the fork and it seemed the only addition it has compared to upstream is a PR that was rejected in In general, I would advise to use upstream, of course. And I also think that the changes from the PR mentioned above are not desirable. But if To save you some time: The main change from the PR was that for any given input file, all parsers (for the various formats) attempt to parse the file, regardless of its ending. This covers cases where a file was given the wrong ending (e.g. a yaml file that has a .json ending). I prefer to throw that back as a user error, though, and I would be surprised if it's important for the conformance checker to include this functionality. |
Thanks @nicoweidner for the analysis. From the description of the additional commits, it doesn't sound like it is essential to the operation of the conformance checker and we can probably just switch to the upstream. |
Roger. Thank you, @nicoweidner! I'll put in a PR to switch to the upstream. |
Related to issue #28
In the course of examining a bug related to parsing, @goneall discovered that
ntia-conformance-checker
is using a fork, not the upstream, oftools-python
.This codebase should use the upstream to take advantage of ongoing improvements.
The only open question: Should this project switch to the upstream before the upstream accepts three commits from @linynjosh's fork? Or should the project switch to the upstream and, in the meantime, try to merge those changes? (Assuming those changes haven't been submitted and merged in the past sometime.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: