fix: merge purls from matching records in lock-file #965
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
2 tasks
baszalmstra
force-pushed
the
fix/merge_purls
branch
from
4770029 to
b42a7cb
Compare
nichmor
reviewed
Dec 5, 2024
| build == &conda_package.record().build | ||
| }) && subdir.as_ref().map_or(true, |subdir| { | ||
| subdir == &conda_package.record().subdir | ||
| all_packages |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
small request: could we please add a comment what this part of branching is doing?
nichmor
reviewed
Dec 5, 2024
|
|
||
| #[test] | ||
| fn test_merge_records_and_purls() { | ||
| let record = PackageRecord { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One small suggestion for the test:
maybe we could test here that indeed a package with purl will win in case of merging with one that doesn't have purl.
This is my idea:
|
|
||
| #[test] | ||
| fn test_merge_records_and_purls() { | ||
| let record = PackageRecord { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| let record = PackageRecord { | |
| let mut record = PackageRecord::new( | |
| PackageName::new_unchecked("foobar"), | |
| Version::from_str("1.0.0").unwrap(), | |
| "build".into(), | |
| ); | |
| let mut record_without_purl = PackageRecord::new( | |
| PackageName::new_unchecked("foobar"), | |
| Version::from_str("1.0.0").unwrap(), | |
| "build".into(), | |
| ); | |
| record.purls = Some( | |
| vec![ | |
| "pkg:pypi/foobar@1.0.0".parse().unwrap(), | |
| ] | |
| .into_iter() | |
| .collect(), | |
| ); | |
| let record = PackageRecord { | |
| subdir: "linux-64".into(), | |
| ..record | |
| }; | |
| let record_without_purl = PackageRecord { | |
| subdir: "linux-64".into(), | |
| ..record_without_purl | |
| }; |
crates/rattler_lock/src/builder.rs
Outdated
| "foobar", | ||
| Platform::Linux64, | ||
| CondaBinaryData { | ||
| package_record: PackageRecord { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| package_record: PackageRecord { | |
| package_record: record_without_purl, |
| .into(), | ||
| ) | ||
| .finish(); | ||
| insta::assert_snapshot!(lock_file.render_to_string().unwrap()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so the snapshot will be like this:
---
source: crates/rattler_lock/src/builder.rs
expression: lock_file.render_to_string().unwrap()
---
version: 6
environments:
default:
channels: []
packages:
linux-64:
- conda: https://prefix.dev/example/linux-64/foobar-1.0.0-build.tar.bz2
foobar:
channels: []
packages:
linux-64:
- conda: https://prefix.dev/example/linux-64/foobar-1.0.0-build.tar.bz2
packages:
- conda: https://prefix.dev/example/linux-64/foobar-1.0.0-build.tar.bz2
arch: x86_64
platform: linux
channel: null
purls:
- pkg:pypi/foobar@1.0.0
which will give us confidence that we indeed merge purls , even when the package is in different environments
|
@nichmor I added all your feedback, let me know what you think! |
|
Just tested the branch on pixi and it fixes it! Thanks! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When two packages are added or read from a v5 lock-file they are deduplicated. However, even though the packages may refer to the same package, they might include optional fields like
purls. This PR merges these optional fields from deduplicated records before building or deserializing lock-files.I added two tests:
I believe this does not need a bump of the lock-file format because this only adds data that was already read correctly but was not properly serialized/constructed.