Bit of a strange question here but it might be the 1am causi

Question

Bit of a strange question here but it might be the 1am causing it For python if I have a `dep` which is a `pex binary` that should necessarily already have `interpreter constraints` resolved correct If so is there any way to just get those resolved constraints Right now I m doing this which seems silly for a target that has already resolved its constraints ```interpreter constraints = InterpreterConstraints create from targets direct deps python setup or InterpreterConstraints python setup interpreter constraints ``` I thought a `FieldSetsPerTargetRequest` with a `PexBinaryFieldSet` had potential but that s an empty collection And `dep target get InterpreterConstraintsField ` returns `None`

wide-midnight-78598 · Answer

I may be thinking about this at the wrong level because the interpreter constraints are resolved during packaging of the pex binary I guess which I think happens after I get a BuiltPackage so this may be an order of operations problem

witty-crayon-22786 · Answer

you only need the `pex binary` s constraints none of its deps

witty-crayon-22786 · Answer

this changed in the last few versions we didn t use to validate that a target had ICs which were compatible with its deps but now we do

witty-crayon-22786 · Answer

gt you only need the `pex binary` s constraints none of its deps with defaulting to the global default as you did there

wide-midnight-78598 · Answer

I m using the `pex binary` as a dep to my target so grabbing those constraints is what I d like to do

witty-crayon-22786 · Answer

sure

wide-midnight-78598 · Answer

So what I did is reasonable since the `pex binary` didn t have any explicit `interpreter constraints` specified

witty-crayon-22786 · Answer

no `pex binary` does have an `interpreter constraints` field

witty-crayon-22786 · Answer

so you want just ```interpreter constraints = InterpreterConstraints create from targets pex binary python setup or InterpreterConstraints python setup interpreter constraints ```

witty-crayon-22786 · Answer

maybe i m misunderstanding you though

wide-midnight-78598 · Answer

I think we re on the same page In my case direct deps is the potential for more than 1 pex which I don t yet know is even valid The trivial case will reduce it to just a single pex binary

witty-crayon-22786 · Answer

this was the change where we began validating that a target always has ICs which are a subset of its dependencies <https github com pantsbuild pants pull 15373>

witty-crayon-22786 · Answer

k yea sounds right then

wide-midnight-78598 · Answer

Cool thanks