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

[WIP] Add support for "requires" key in Python install config and allow extra keys beginning with "x-" #7259

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

NiklasRosenstein
Copy link

  • Adds support for a "requires" install step in the Python install config. This allows you to specify requirements directly in the readthedocs config.
  • Allow extra keys in the v2 configuration file if the key name starts with x-.

My motivation for this change is to reduce the number of files needed if

a) the requirements are needed only for readthedocs, and thus it makes sense to put them in the configuration directly, and
b) add the ability to enrich the readthedocs config with non-standard data for custom workflows

@NiklasRosenstein NiklasRosenstein changed the title Add support for "requires" key in Python install config and allow extra keys beginning with "x-" [WIP] Add support for "requires" key in Python install config and allow extra keys beginning with "x-" Jul 4, 2020
Copy link
Member

@stsewd stsewd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the PR. We are discussing this feature at #5572. I think we want to accept a list of packages, that way we nor the user need to worry about separating/escaping each argument.

python:
  install:
      - packages:
            - mkdocs>=1.1
            - sphinx

Multiple packages keys can be present of course. I have notices this in the issue for further dicsussion there, feel free to comment there with any other suggestion 👍

Also, you may want to add the x-option in another PR or open an issue for further discussion of that feature.

@NiklasRosenstein
Copy link
Author

Hey @stsewd ! Thanks for your comments. I've submitted two separate PRs per your suggestion: #7288 #7289

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants