Simplify, fix, and add unit tests for PipProvider.get_preference
#12982
Conversation
|
CI is green, ready for review / merge |
|
Tentatively putting this on the 24.3 milestone since it's a small bug fix, a small refactor, and finally unit tests get_preference! Feel free to remove. |
|
For this one, we'd need a review by a committer who is more familiar than I am with the innards of the resolver. |
|
I ran all scenarios against: https://github.com/notatallshaw/Pip-Resolution-Scenarios-and-Benchmarks There is no regression or advantage between this PR and pip 24.2, which is what I expected (there was a small chance removing the broken |
| explicit URL. | ||
| * If equal, prefer if any requirement is "pinned", i.e. contains | ||
| operator ``===`` or ``==``. | ||
| * If a requirement is part of the current cause for backtracking. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This sentence seems to be incomplete?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, I've update to match the style of the surrounding sentances.
| * If equal, prefer if any requirement is "pinned", i.e. contains | ||
| * If equal, prefer if any requirement is "pinned", i.e., contains | ||
| operator ``===`` or ``==``. | ||
| * If the a member of backtrack causes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, I've updated this point to match what I wrote in the docs
notatallshaw
force-pushed
the
unit-test-get-preference
branch
from
90d10d6 to
b8d1f11
Compare
|
Going to make a single follow up PR once #13001 lands, I'll comment here once done. |
2 participants
Fixes: #12975
This PR does the following:
directas a preference based on this reasoning:directpreference in resolution doesn't work #12975 (comment)get_preference(removes logic flow via exception)get_preferenceget_preferenceSide note: I think I've found a bug in the way
parent_depthsis calculated when a requirement with an extra is involved, but it was too involved to fix in this PR, once I've pinned it down I will make a follow up PR.