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

Allow "double requirements" if versions don't conflict #56

Closed
vbabiy opened this issue Mar 15, 2011 · 15 comments
Closed

Allow "double requirements" if versions don't conflict #56

vbabiy opened this issue Mar 15, 2011 · 15 comments
Labels
auto-locked Outdated issues that have been locked by automation C: dependency resolution About choosing which dependencies to install type: bug A confirmed bug or unintended behavior

Comments

@vbabiy
Copy link
Contributor

vbabiy commented Mar 15, 2011

I'd like to be able to compose a requirements file that uses the -r option to install several other packages by their own requirements files.

But in this use scenario, it's possible - even likely - that these separate packages may have overlapping requirements.

This works fine when installing each of them with a separate pip command, as long as you don't hit a version conflict; but when using one master requirements file that includes the others, you'd get the "Double requirement given" error.

I'd like to propose that it should not be an error unless there are version conflicts.

That may be tricky, as it means computing the union of the allowed versions, and pkg_resources confuses me so I'm not sure if there's a right way to do it.


@slinkp
Copy link

slinkp commented Aug 4, 2011

Related: #174

@muelli
Copy link

muelli commented Jul 18, 2012

My usecase is to have hierarchical requirement files, i.e. "running.txt" and "testing.txt" where "running" would only contain the bare minimum to make it run, i.e. "django>=1.3" and "testing" would need "django>=1.4" because some parts in the testing process use a newer API which is only available in the more recent version.
I'd like to be able to put "django>1.3" in my "running.txt" and then "-r running.txt django>=1.4" in my testing.txt

@jacinda
Copy link

jacinda commented Aug 21, 2013

I have the same use case as muelli.

@guettli
Copy link

guettli commented Sep 19, 2013

would be nice to have this feature.

@jgumbley
Copy link

jgumbley commented Nov 7, 2013

+1

5 similar comments
@DXist
Copy link

DXist commented Dec 26, 2013

+1

@n0phx
Copy link

n0phx commented Jan 29, 2014

+1

@carlosviol
Copy link

+1

@tboggs
Copy link

tboggs commented Mar 6, 2014

+1

@Gr1N
Copy link

Gr1N commented Mar 14, 2014

+1

@GheRivero
Copy link

+2, Approved :)

@qwcode qwcode self-assigned this Mar 27, 2014
@qwcode
Copy link
Contributor

qwcode commented Mar 27, 2014

btw, I've started on this. will try to get a PR posted in a few days. involves some refactor that's needed to make things clearer about our dependency resolution.

@qwcode
Copy link
Contributor

qwcode commented Apr 6, 2014

I admit to not reading this issue correctly before. I'm closing this as a dupe to #988, which is our main issue for adding a proper resolver to pip. I just updated the description to cover resolving top-level requirements.

if anyone adding +1's here are actually concerned about literal duplicates across multiple requirement files, see #993. that is actually the problem I mentioned above that I was starting on.

@piotr-dobrogost
Copy link

See issue #1795
@qwcode
I don't think it's a duplicate of issue #988 as here the aim is to just "merge" all conditions of the same top-level package and it seems it's orthogonal to general problem of dependency management which is the subject of issue #988. If you agree this should be reopened and taken into consideration when discussing Requirements 2.0 in issue #1795

@qwcode
Copy link
Contributor

qwcode commented May 24, 2014

@piotr-dobrogost : I only closed this as a dupe after I updated the description of #988 to cover the problem of consolidating multiple top-level requirements for a project. so in a very literal sense, it is a dupe now. consolidating multiple top-level requirements seems similar to consolidating multiple in the dependency tree. I want #988 ticket to hold all the big fundamental changes to our resolver logic, which will likely get fixed at one time together.

openstack-gerrit pushed a commit to openstack/oslo.db that referenced this issue Jul 6, 2014
This change presents one way we might include test support
for oslo.db against specific SQLAlchemy major releases, currently
including the 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9 series.  As we will want to
begin including features within oslo.db that target advanced
and in some cases semi-public APIs within SQLAlchemy, it will
be important that we test these features against each major release,
as there may be variances between major revs as well as
version-specific approaches within oslo.

To accomplish this, I was not able to override "deps" alone,
as the SQLAlchemy revision within requirements.txt conflicts
with a hand-entered requirement, and due to pip's lack of
a dependency resolver (see pypa/pip#988
and pypa/pip#56) I instead overrode
"commands".  I don't know that this is the best approach, nor
do I know how the tox.ini file is accommodated by CI servers,
if these CI servers would need their tox invocation altered or
how that works.

This patch may or may not be the way to go, but in any case
I'd like to get input on how we can ensure that more SQLAlchemy-specific
oslo.db features can be tested against multiple SQLAlchemy versions.
Note that even with this change, running the "sqla_07" environment
does in fact produce test failures, see https://paste.openstack.org/show/85263/;
so already oslo.db expects behaviors that are not present in
all SQLAlchemy versions listed in the common requirements.txt.

Change-Id: I4128272ce15b9e576d7b97b1adab4d5027108c7c
openstack-gerrit pushed a commit to openstack/openstack that referenced this issue Jul 6, 2014
Project: openstack/oslo.db  a1fd49fd9b726017de02856ab0e0dfe3751e2394

Test for distinct SQLAlchemy major releases

This change presents one way we might include test support
for oslo.db against specific SQLAlchemy major releases, currently
including the 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9 series.  As we will want to
begin including features within oslo.db that target advanced
and in some cases semi-public APIs within SQLAlchemy, it will
be important that we test these features against each major release,
as there may be variances between major revs as well as
version-specific approaches within oslo.

To accomplish this, I was not able to override "deps" alone,
as the SQLAlchemy revision within requirements.txt conflicts
with a hand-entered requirement, and due to pip's lack of
a dependency resolver (see pypa/pip#988
and pypa/pip#56) I instead overrode
"commands".  I don't know that this is the best approach, nor
do I know how the tox.ini file is accommodated by CI servers,
if these CI servers would need their tox invocation altered or
how that works.

This patch may or may not be the way to go, but in any case
I'd like to get input on how we can ensure that more SQLAlchemy-specific
oslo.db features can be tested against multiple SQLAlchemy versions.
Note that even with this change, running the "sqla_07" environment
does in fact produce test failures, see https://paste.openstack.org/show/85263/;
so already oslo.db expects behaviors that are not present in
all SQLAlchemy versions listed in the common requirements.txt.

Change-Id: I4128272ce15b9e576d7b97b1adab4d5027108c7c
cazino added a commit to scality/ScalitySproxydSwift that referenced this issue Jul 10, 2015
otherwise pip crashes with 'Double requirement given' error.
That might be fixed in a future version of pip :
see pypa/pip#56
and pypa/pip#988
cazino added a commit to scality/ScalitySproxydSwift that referenced this issue Jul 10, 2015
Add swit-2.3.0 target

Avoid to install anything except flake8 which is the only thing needed in the pep8 env
(this is how Swift does it : https://github.com/openstack/swift/blob/49e7c25876cf4d3bc9412443f881e8472e88e827/tox.ini)

Mock 1.1 (latest version as the time of writing) dropped py26 compatibility.
Can't have mock dependency both in test-requirements.txt and tox.ini,
otherwise pip crashes with 'Double requirement given' error.
That might be fixed in a future version of pip :
see pypa/pip#56
and pypa/pip#988
openstack-gerrit pushed a commit to openstack-archive/deb-python-oslo.db that referenced this issue Aug 17, 2016
This change presents one way we might include test support
for oslo.db against specific SQLAlchemy major releases, currently
including the 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9 series.  As we will want to
begin including features within oslo.db that target advanced
and in some cases semi-public APIs within SQLAlchemy, it will
be important that we test these features against each major release,
as there may be variances between major revs as well as
version-specific approaches within oslo.

To accomplish this, I was not able to override "deps" alone,
as the SQLAlchemy revision within requirements.txt conflicts
with a hand-entered requirement, and due to pip's lack of
a dependency resolver (see pypa/pip#988
and pypa/pip#56) I instead overrode
"commands".  I don't know that this is the best approach, nor
do I know how the tox.ini file is accommodated by CI servers,
if these CI servers would need their tox invocation altered or
how that works.

This patch may or may not be the way to go, but in any case
I'd like to get input on how we can ensure that more SQLAlchemy-specific
oslo.db features can be tested against multiple SQLAlchemy versions.
Note that even with this change, running the "sqla_07" environment
does in fact produce test failures, see https://paste.openstack.org/show/85263/;
so already oslo.db expects behaviors that are not present in
all SQLAlchemy versions listed in the common requirements.txt.

Change-Id: I4128272ce15b9e576d7b97b1adab4d5027108c7c
@lock lock bot added the auto-locked Outdated issues that have been locked by automation label Jun 5, 2019
@lock lock bot unassigned qwcode Jun 5, 2019
@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 5, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
auto-locked Outdated issues that have been locked by automation C: dependency resolution About choosing which dependencies to install type: bug A confirmed bug or unintended behavior
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests