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

Consistent lockfile-relative vs absolute sources #230

Closed

Conversation

riccardoporreca
Copy link
Contributor

Resolve #229

* Addressing the inconsistency with the absolute source paths introduced in conda#175 and noticed in conda#229.
@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Aug 10, 2022

Deploy Preview for conda-lock ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 12e1e1c
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/conda-lock/deploys/62f3d1fc31251f00092c3fd6
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-230--conda-lock.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings.

@riccardoporreca riccardoporreca changed the title Consistent lock-file relative vs absolute sources Consistent lockfile-relative vs absolute sources Aug 10, 2022
@riccardoporreca riccardoporreca marked this pull request as draft August 15, 2022 09:46
@riccardoporreca
Copy link
Contributor Author

On hold waiting for PR #204, see #204 (comment)

@bstadlbauer
Copy link
Contributor

@riccardoporreca @maresb I think #204 would be merged - anything I could help with here?

@maresb
Copy link
Contributor

maresb commented Dec 14, 2022

Looks like there are merge conflicts to be resolved

@maresb
Copy link
Contributor

maresb commented Dec 14, 2022

@bstadlbauer, you could rebase @riccardoporreca's branch on main and open a new PR referencing this one.

@riccardoporreca
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bstadlbauer, @maresb, if this can wait till the weekend, I will be happy to take care of the rebasing

@bstadlbauer
Copy link
Contributor

@riccardoporreca Could we add a test that checks the new behavior? Just to make sure there is no regression in future versions

@srilman
Copy link
Contributor

srilman commented Jan 28, 2023

@riccardoporreca Is it alright to add the missing tests for you? Ran into this issue recently and would love to see this PR merged.

@riccardoporreca
Copy link
Contributor Author

@maresb, @bstadlbauer, I was too optimistic with my time before the festivities in December :), thanks @srilman for the reminder.

I will manage to rebase and at least draft some tests in the next few days

@riccardoporreca
Copy link
Contributor Author

See #328 for the rebased/revamped PR

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.

Allow relative paths for sources
4 participants