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

switch on stdlib-piggyback for all migrations #2372

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 7, 2024

Conversation

h-vetinari
Copy link
Contributor

Now that we've fixed the initial set of issues uncovered by running the stdlib migrator (#2135) for the boost 1.84 migration, it should be time to roll it out to all migrations.

CC @beckermr @isuruf

Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 7, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 71.44%. Comparing base (bb1d81c) to head (7288353).

Files Patch % Lines
conda_forge_tick/auto_tick.py 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #2372   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   71.44%   71.44%           
=======================================
  Files          99       99           
  Lines        9839     9838    -1     
=======================================
  Hits         7029     7029           
+ Misses       2810     2809    -1     

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

@beckermr
Copy link
Contributor

beckermr commented Apr 7, 2024

Should we add to the version migrator too?

@h-vetinari
Copy link
Contributor Author

Should we add to the version migrator too?

That's a great idea, though I'm kinda on the fence about it. One current failure mode for the piggyback is the output-names are templated (e.g. name: {{ name }}), as we then cannot reasonably slice the recipe into sections. This will cause some small amount of failures for the migrators (kinda unavoidable, though I tend to get rid of such fake variables once I touch a feedstock), but I think we should not encumber the version bot with that? 🤔

Or maybe we can loosen the safety net of the piggyback there...?

@h-vetinari
Copy link
Contributor Author

In any case, I would defer the question about adding it to the version migrator for now; we can reconsider later, if/once we've found a way to avoid spurious failures.

@beckermr
Copy link
Contributor

beckermr commented Apr 7, 2024

SGMT and thank you!

@beckermr beckermr merged commit f0796ef into regro:master Apr 7, 2024
4 of 5 checks passed
@h-vetinari h-vetinari deleted the stdlib branch April 7, 2024 13:32
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants