Proof of concept of adding options per-requirement#10112
Conversation
lasote
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know these tests are pretty straightforward but we must introduce the dev rule of a docstring on every test. That would save a lot of review time and debug time when a feature breaks some test.
|
Agree with the docs on tests. This is the review I did to other PR after @franramirez688 suggestion: 5ec4b5a. Lets do it always. |
|
Missing @czoido, but the idea seems to be ok? I submitted this as a PoC for the interface, I will try to extend a bit more the tests and mark it ready for review & merge |
|
OMG so happy to see these docstrings |
| down_options = Options(options_values=require.options) | ||
| down_options.scope(new_ref.name) | ||
| # TODO: discuss, together with build_require override, if it is "build" or "visible" | ||
| if require.visible: # Only visible requirements propagate options from downstream |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changed this from not require.build => require.visible., thinking about what makes more sense...
|
I have added tests to validate that Please re-review. |
Responding to #9839, and to the need of defining different options in build_requires and requires:
Close #9839