Inline inject_init.py into prepare_chrooted_python_sources.py
#9115
Conversation
This file contains 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
Eric-Arellano
commented
Feb 12, 2020
| from pants.rules.core.strip_source_roots import SourceRootStrippedSources | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| @dataclass(frozen=True) | ||
| class ChrootedPythonSources: | ||
| digest: Digest | ||
| snapshot: Snapshot |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I changed this because Snapshot is generally much more useful to rule authors than Digest.
| address = Address(spec_path=PurePath(source_paths[0]).parent.as_posix(), target_name="target") | ||
| return HydratedTarget(address=address, adaptor=adaptor, dependencies=()) | ||
|
|
||
| def test_adds_missing_inits_and_strips_source_roots(self) -> None: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I didn't stress test all the different combinations of source root stripping because that is already tested in strip_source_roots_test.py.
Let me know if you can think of any further edge cases with injecting __init__.py, though. One thing we could do is to ensure that a pre-existing file still keeps its original content. It would make the test setup a bit more complex, but is probably worth it? Thoughts?
gshuflin
approved these changes
Feb 12, 2020
Eric-Arellano
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 25, 2020
#9115 inlined `inject_init.py` into `prepare_chrooted_python_sources.py` because it was the only call site at the time. Turns out, V2 coverage has a use case for `inject_init`. This makes several enhancements over the original `inject_init` implementation: * Uses `InputFilesContent` instead of `ExecuteProcessRequest` * The result merges the original with new `__init__.py`s, rather than returning only the newly added `__init__.py`s. * Returns a `Snapshot`, rather than `Digest`, which is more ergonomic. * More comprehensive tests, e.g. ensuring we aren't overriding the original `__init__.py`.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
We were only using
inject_init.pyfor the purpose ofprepare_chrooted_python_sources.py. Inlining this simplifies things. If we ever end up needing the init logic to be used in another context, we can, of course, generalize it back out.More importantly, this stops using a hacky
ExecuteProcessRequestto create the missing__init__.pyfiles to instead use engine intrinsics. This improves readability and performance.