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

fix(core): relax pathspec upper bound version limitation #9373

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Apr 10, 2024

Conversation

rzjfr
Copy link
Contributor

@rzjfr rzjfr commented Jan 13, 2024

resolves #9372

Problem

Starting from dbt-core 1.2.6 this dependency has been added: pathspec>=0.9,<0.12 which conflicts with latest version of pathspec (0.12.1). I can't find any reason specifically for <0.12. It seems to be consequence of dependebot upgrading more restrictive pathspec~=0.9 here and then later here

Solution

I can't find any reason to restrict pathspec <0.12. I couldn't find any major change that can break anything related to this package in pathspec change log. Here I just removed the upper bound. If we want to be for some reason very conservative about this particular package we can change it either to <0.13 or <1.

Checklist

  • I have read the contributing guide and understand what's expected of me
  • I have run this code in development and it appears to resolve the stated issue
  • This PR includes tests, or tests are not required/relevant for this PR
  • This PR has no interface changes (e.g. macros, cli, logs, json artifacts, config files, adapter interface, etc) or this PR has already received feedback and approval from Product or DX
  • This PR includes type annotations for new and modified functions

@rzjfr rzjfr requested a review from a team as a code owner January 13, 2024 22:36
@rzjfr rzjfr requested a review from ChenyuLInx January 13, 2024 22:36
Copy link

cla-bot bot commented Jan 13, 2024

Thanks for your pull request, and welcome to our community! We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement and we don't seem to have your signature on file. Check out this article for more information on why we have a CLA.

In order for us to review and merge your code, please submit the Individual Contributor License Agreement form attached above above. If you have questions about the CLA, or if you believe you've received this message in error, please reach out through a comment on this PR.

CLA has not been signed by users: @rzjfr

Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for your pull request! We could not find a changelog entry for this change. For details on how to document a change, see the contributing guide.

@dbeatty10
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for opening @rzjfr

Could you do the following?

  1. Sign the Contributor License Agreement (CLA)
  2. Add a changelog entry via changie new (so that it will show in the changelog under the Dependencies section)

@cla-bot cla-bot bot added the cla:yes label Jan 17, 2024
@rzjfr
Copy link
Contributor Author

rzjfr commented Jan 17, 2024

Thanks for opening @rzjfr

Could you do the following?

1. Sign the Contributor License Agreement (CLA)

2. Add a changelog entry via `changie new` (so that it will show in the changelog under the [Dependencies](https://github.com/dbt-labs/dbt-core/blob/1.7.latest/CHANGELOG.md?rgh-link-date=2024-01-16T22%3A37%3A04Z#dependencies) section)

Thanks for the review @dbeatty10, I did both 👍

While merging main back to the PR I realised this commit which was arguing for keeping the upper bound as it's in major-version-0, so I just upgraded 0.12 to 0.13 while I was resolving the conflict.
I've already checked the changelog of 0.12 there should be no breaking change.

What do you think?

Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 1, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.02%. Comparing base (6fd0a94) to head (d1642d9).
Report is 47 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9373      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.06%   88.02%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         178      178              
  Lines       22439    22439              
==========================================
- Hits        19762    19751      -11     
- Misses       2677     2688      +11     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 85.48% <ø> (-0.14%) ⬇️
unit 62.24% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@dbeatty10 dbeatty10 added ready_for_review Externally contributed PR has functional approval, ready for code review from Core engineering and removed triage labels Feb 1, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@ChenyuLInx ChenyuLInx left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@rzjfr Thanks for contributing! This looks good to me!
Do you mind push a commit to get the code quality check passing? Then I can merge.

@rzjfr
Copy link
Contributor Author

rzjfr commented Mar 3, 2024

@rzjfr Thanks for contributing! This looks good to me! Do you mind push a commit to get the code quality check passing? Then I can merge.

Hi @ChenyuLInx ,
Thanks for checking the PR,

Sorry for that, It must have been failing when I created my branch and I didn't realize.
I merged main back again as this PR seem to have addressed the issue.

@safwank
Copy link

safwank commented Mar 11, 2024

Any chance this will be merged soon?

@jerry153fish
Copy link

+1 We will need this to unblock our process. Thanks very much.

@dbeatty10 dbeatty10 added the community This PR is from a community member label Apr 9, 2024
@dbeatty10 dbeatty10 merged commit fb41ce9 into dbt-labs:main Apr 10, 2024
60 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cla:yes community This PR is from a community member ready_for_review Externally contributed PR has functional approval, ready for code review from Core engineering
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[CT-3546] Remove restrictive pathspec version depencency (upper bound)
6 participants