Add pylock #900
Add pylock #900
Conversation
src/packaging/pylock.py
Outdated
| url: str | None # = None | ||
| path: str | None # = None | ||
| size: int | None # = None | ||
| upload_time: datetime | None # = None |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the spec, the upload_time field is not at the same position for archive and sdist / wheel.
Is that intended or something we want to tweak here and/or in the spec?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That was intended as the idea (and expected value) comes from the index API and I don't think archives are supported there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But if people have uses for an upload time for archives then I suspect making it a 1.1 change wouldn't be controversial.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note my remark was only about the ordering of the fields, not about the presence of upload_time in archive.
sbidoul
force-pushed
the
pylock
branch
2 times, most recently
from
f3fc4ad to
5ab8ae9
Compare
|
I consider this PR ready for review. I plan to add documentation after a first round of review, assuming the overall design is agreeable to packaging maintainers, of course. |
|
FYI I'm hoping to look at this post-EuroPython in hopes that it helps unblock pip so it can add installation support for |
sbidoul
force-pushed
the
pylock
branch
8 times, most recently
from
a59d102 to
bc61305
Compare
|
@brettcannon thanks for the review. I handled the comments and added a documentation page. This is ready for a second round. |
|
LGTM! Thanks for all the work on this, @sbidoul ! @pradyunsg @henryiii any opinions on this before we merge it? |
|
I'm heading out for a week, won't have time to review the code soon, excited by the idea though! :) Is the docs failure related? Looks like it might be due to a merge after #897? |
The error does look related, if I get a moment in the next few days I will try and checkout this branch and understand why this is happening in the docs build. |
My idea was to have from_dict independent of the class to cope for future evolution, but if a new version of the standard can't be implemented as a subclass of Pylock, return type of from_dict would change, so it would be a breaking change. If/when a new version of the spec arrive, it will still be time to design the API evolution, depending of the actual changes.
Co-authored-by: Brett Cannon <[email protected]>
Also make _get_*_as function more versatile by accepting a callable for the target type.
These comments were remnants of dataclass experiments.
This is more consitent than having some validations done in the constructor and other in from_dict.
This was not meant to be public
|
I added a few commits with some minor improvements, notably:
Let me know if there is something else I can do. |
|
My approval stands, so I think we just need @henryiii or @pradyunsg to also approve and then we can merge this! |
5 participants
Here is the proposal for
pylock.tomlsupport.from_dictclass method to validate and create aPylockinstance from a toml dict (obtained fromtomllib.load)Pylock.to_dictmethod to convert to a spec-compliant toml dict (assuming types were respected when populating the dataclass), preserving the recommended field orderingis_valid_pylock_pathto validate pylock file namesvalidatemethod to check that a Pylock instance is spec compliant (one obtained fromfrom_dictis guaranteed to be, but one created manually may not be)Documentation is still TODO.closes #898