Skip to content

Some more progress towards recipe v1 minimigrators #3783

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Feb 28, 2025
Merged

Some more progress towards recipe v1 minimigrators #3783

merged 6 commits into from
Feb 28, 2025

Conversation

mgorny
Copy link
Contributor

@mgorny mgorny commented Feb 28, 2025

Description:

  • enable Cos7Config on v1 recipes
  • move test data for test_cross_compile into files (but without actually updating the migrator, after seeing how much code I'd need to update)
  • mark DuplicateLinesCleanup migrator as incompatible with v1 recipes (duplicate keys are an error there)

Checklist:

  • Pydantic model updated or no update needed

Cross-refs, links to issues, etc:

@mgorny
Enable Cos7Config migrator for v1 recipes
b890fcd
@mgorny
Move test_cross_compile recipes into files in test_yaml
91dce67 
Move the inline test recipes from `test_cross_compile` to individual
files, in order to make them more maintainable.  This will also make
it easier to add v1 variations.
@mgorny
Explicitly mark DuplicateLinesCleanup as incompatible with v1 recipes
6da1d86
@mgorny
Fix EOL in tests/test_v1_yaml/version_cos7_config_simple.yaml
d42bcb0
beckermr
beckermr requested changes Feb 28, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@beckermr beckermr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

When moving around recipes, please be careful that the tests of the recipe parser still find all of the examples. I'll look closer later.

@beckermr
Copy link
Contributor

This line here in particular is what I am concerned about: https://github.com/regro/cf-scripts/blob/main/tests/test_recipe_parser.py#L1612

@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 28, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 93.54839% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 75.90%. Comparing base (3b668d5) to head (1b953a3).
Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
conda_forge_tick/migrators/cos7.py 66.66% 1 Missing ⚠️
conda_forge_tick/migrators/duplicate_lines.py 66.66% 1 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your project status has failed because the head coverage (94.05%) is below the target coverage (95.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3783      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   77.39%   75.90%   -1.50%     
==========================================
  Files         134      134              
  Lines       14845    14842       -3     
==========================================
- Hits        11490    11266     -224     
- Misses       3355     3576     +221

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@mgorny
Copy link
Contributor Author

mgorny commented Feb 28, 2025

This line here in particular is what I am concerned about: https://github.com/regro/cf-scripts/blob/main/tests/test_recipe_parser.py#L1612

Ah, sorry, didn't expect that. Do you prefer that I move them back to top-level, or modify this test to look recursively?

@beckermr
Copy link
Contributor

We should modify the list to look recursively.

beckermr
beckermr approved these changes Feb 28, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@beckermr beckermr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you!

@beckermr beckermr enabled auto-merge February 28, 2025 19:20
@beckermr beckermr added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 28, 2025
@mgorny
Copy link
Contributor Author

mgorny commented Feb 28, 2025

Thank you!

Merged via the queue into regro:main with commit d858e15 Feb 28, 2025
6 of 8 checks passed
@beckermr beckermr mentioned this pull request Feb 28, 2025
Open
33 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@beckermr beckermr beckermr approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@mgorny @beckermr