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

Fix parsing of development dependencies for airflow version #43995

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 14, 2024

Conversation

potiuk
Copy link
Member

@potiuk potiuk commented Nov 13, 2024

The script to install development dependencies asumed development dependencies are always >= this might not be true in case we limit the depdencies to be < or provide other requirements for them.

This PR fixes it by using "packaging.requirements.Requirement" to parse the specifier, which should handle all cases nicely.


^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in a newsfragment file, named {pr_number}.significant.rst or {issue_number}.significant.rst, in newsfragments.

The script to install development dependencies asumed development
dependencies are always `>=` this might not be true in case we
limit the depdencies to be < or provide other requirements for them.

This PR fixes it by using "packaging.requirements.Requirement" to
parse the specifier, which should handle all cases nicely.
@potiuk potiuk merged commit edcb48a into apache:main Nov 14, 2024
78 checks passed
@potiuk potiuk deleted the fix-devel-deps-parsin branch November 14, 2024 00:33
amoghrajesh pushed a commit to astronomer/airflow that referenced this pull request Nov 14, 2024
…3995)

The script to install development dependencies asumed development
dependencies are always `>=` this might not be true in case we
limit the depdencies to be < or provide other requirements for them.

This PR fixes it by using "packaging.requirements.Requirement" to
parse the specifier, which should handle all cases nicely.
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