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

Compatibility with poetry 2.0 #312

Closed
dbIgel opened this issue Jan 16, 2025 · 3 comments · Fixed by #313
Closed

Compatibility with poetry 2.0 #312

dbIgel opened this issue Jan 16, 2025 · 3 comments · Fixed by #313

Comments

@dbIgel
Copy link
Contributor

dbIgel commented Jan 16, 2025

Describe the bug
Poetry 2.0 changed the hash format (again), it re-packs the data when configured in the new pyproject.toml format, see code and announcement

To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:

  1. Use poetry 2 to generate the poetry.lock
  2. Run micropipenv.py verify
  3. Its not valid

Expected behavior
A clear and concise description of what you expected to happen.

The _compute_poetry_hash funciton should be extended, as done for #280 to support the new format

Screenshots
-

Additional context
-

@frenzymadness
Copy link
Collaborator

Thank you very much for the detailed report. It seems you know all the details and what has to be done. Would you consider opening a PR?

@dbIgel
Copy link
Contributor Author

dbIgel commented Jan 16, 2025

Thats just what i found out while having a quick look at the code :D
Some patching around was somewhat successful but didn't show the expected results so i would propose to more or less adapt the poetry logic directly instead of "patching around" it.

@dbIgel
Copy link
Contributor Author

dbIgel commented Jan 21, 2025

@frenzymadness i created #313 as a start which adds support for the new format during validation, feel free to have a look at it and suggest anything that i have missed, tests to be added etc.

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 a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants