Skip to content
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

Dependency specifiers grammar fixes #1181

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jun 26, 2024

Conversation

konstin
Copy link
Contributor

@konstin konstin commented Dec 11, 2022

This PR contains three changes:


Dependency Specifiers: Don't require whitespace after URL

otherwise numpy @ https://example.org/numpy is not a valid specifier (missing whitespace after the URL). This already what pip and packaging do and also what the parsley grammar says


Dependency Specifiers: Require whitespace before in and not in

Otherwise numpy; os_namein 'posix' would be a valid specifier which it isn't


Dependency Specifiers: Require whitespace after in and not in

Otherwise numpy; os_name in'posix' and numpy; os_name inos_name would be valid. pypa/packaging 22.0 actually allows currently numpy; os_name in'posix', but i argue there should be a whitespace after in and not in just like in python itself

otherwise would `numpy @ https://example.org/numpy` is not a valid specifier (missing whitespace after the URL). This already what pip and packaging do and also what the parsley grammar says
Otherwise `numpy; os_namein 'posix'` would be a valid specifier which it isn't
Otherwise `numpy; os_name in'posix'` and `numpy; os_name inos_name` would be valid. pypa/packaging 22.0 actually allows currently `numpy; os_name in'posix'`
Copy link
Contributor

@chrysle chrysle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks good to me; sorry for the lengthy delay in reviewing.

@chrysle chrysle added this pull request to the merge queue Jun 26, 2024
Merged via the queue into pypa:main with commit 9fea6ca Jun 26, 2024
5 checks passed
@chrysle
Copy link
Contributor

chrysle commented Jun 26, 2024

Thank you!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants