Open
Conversation
|
jonkeane
force-pushed
the
require_requirements
branch
from
61d8d73 to
cbd2cf4
Compare
☂️ Python Coverage
Overall Coverage
New FilesNo new covered files... Modified Files
|
Collaborator
|
I agree that making requirements.txt generation explicit instead of implicit is the correct direction.
|
5 tasks
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Intent
Require a requirements file by default, do not provide one. This is partially an idea to see how others feel about it. I would argue that we actually should remove the pip freeze fallback entirely, honestly. Possibly replacing it with https://github.com/bndr/pipreqs (or we could pull in the go code that the publisher uses).
Resolves #538
Type of Change
Approach
Mostly Claude, actually
Automated Tests
Changed
Checklist
Will do at some point: