-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
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
fix: make rip handle pre-releases more similar to pip #140
Conversation
Hm, while this works to some degree, it currently thinks that there are no candidates other than pre-releases too often. This is because not all "artifacts" are passed into the |
I have worked a little more this morning on the pre-release stuff and there is a little problem. Maybe you have ideas. I believe the idea for filtering pre-releases is that it depends on the requirement, for example if I do rip jupyterlab==4.1.0b0 we would only select pre-release candidates for jupyterlab, and so it should be allowed. However, the |
Are you basing this off what Pip does? Because I'm fairly confident Pip is not spec compliant (e.g. pypa/pip#12469) and Pip's behavior may change quite a bit after pypa/pip#11715 finally lands. |
Yeah, indeed, I was trying to see what pip does. I also thought that your interpretation from the linked issue is correct. Unfortunately that is also harder for us to implement (not because the code would be complex, but because our API interfaces don't really support this yet). The rule we consider implemeting is to allow pre-releases if the version specifier mentions pre-releases, e.g. |
What do you mean with this, can you give an example what would and what would not be passed? |
The filter candidates function gets artifacts only for a single version. To check if all versions of a given package are pre-releases I moved the function one level up (check last commit). |
should fix #118
Not sure about #4 but also not sure wether #4 is according to spec, either :)