:pants: Pants pre-release testing :pants: Hey eve...
# general
b
๐Ÿ‘– Pants pre-release testing ๐Ÿ‘– Hey everyone! I'm aiming to cut Pants 2.26.0 later this week. Now is your chance to test it and identify any issues that we should fix before release, to make your upgrade path easier. Release notes: https://github.com/pantsbuild/pants/blob/529581f7cc59afbd08204c1196820b9266c37c9c/docs/notes/2.26.x.md When you have a moment, please validate it on any Pants-using codebases you have access to: 1. Edit
pants.toml
to say
pants_version = "2.26.0rc0"
2. Run your favourite commands like
pants lint ::
and/or run it through your CI 3. Let me know how it goes! If it works, or if there's issues/questions. By testing in advance, you help the Pants project and help yourself too: the sooner we catch issues, the better. Thank you! (If you have more time, please read over the release notes and test any features that catch your eye.)
๐Ÿš€ 1
๐Ÿ‘– 2
๐Ÿงช 1
2๏ธโƒฃ 1
6๏ธโƒฃ 1
c
I've run rc0 through our CI and nothing was obviously amiss. Trivial to update, but in one instance I did have to change:
Copy code
python_sources(dependencies=["3rdparty/py#foo-bar"])
to
Copy code
python_sources(dependencies=["3rdparty/py#foo_bar"])
b
Thanks. I... uh... can't tell what changed there?
Oh,
-
to
_
. Hm. I wonder if that might be related to the change "The Python backend now uses the PyPI
packaging
distribution to parse all Python version numbers and requirements instead of the deprecated
pkg_resources
distribution." (https://github.com/pantsbuild/pants/pull/22033), which, on the surface, doesn't sound unrelated package names and whatever normalisation is required. That's not the best ๐Ÿค”
c
I think
packaging
is a fair guess... https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/name-normalization/#name-normalization But also the order I saw is the opposite of the normalization rules? I'm uncertain in part because this package is a private one that already does a number of strange things.