Add more Pulp Exceptions.#1440
Conversation
aKlimau
force-pushed
the
add-pulp-exceptions
branch
6 times, most recently
from
61abafd to
26799ca
Compare
aKlimau
force-pushed
the
add-pulp-exceptions
branch
8 times, most recently
from
de94a5e to
b1b54b6
Compare
aKlimau
force-pushed
the
add-pulp-exceptions
branch
from
b1b54b6 to
e3388cb
Compare
| Exception Signifying that the Release file contains the 'No-Support-for-Architecture-all' field, | ||
| but with a value other than 'Packages'. We interpret this as an error since this would likely | ||
| signify some unknown repo format, that pulp_deb is more likely to get wrong than right! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not a strong opinion, but I would keep the original class descriptions to ensure that no information was lost.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@aKlimau I meant everywhere in this PR, not just in this one case. But it is up to you.
aKlimau
force-pushed
the
add-pulp-exceptions
branch
from
e3388cb to
4c58f8d
Compare
| """ | ||
| Copy content from one repo to another. | ||
|
|
||
| Args: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wow, these look plain wrong...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They do look wrong. Don't look like they were copied from pulp_rpm either. Perhaps from some early development state and then we forgot to read them during review? 😰 I may dig through the history at some point to try and understand what happened here. Probably my fault. Certainly out of scope for this PR...
aKlimau
force-pushed
the
add-pulp-exceptions
branch
from
4c58f8d to
d0790a5
Compare
|
I will try to review this next/soon. It fixes our deprecation warnings, so thanks for that! Just need to find some time to do it... |
| # All things django and asyncio are deliberately left to pulpcore | ||
| # Example transitive requirements: asgiref, asyncio, aiohttp | ||
| "pulpcore>=3.85.0,<3.115", | ||
| "pulpcore>=3.105.0,<3.115", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will disappear with rebase to latest main branch. I need to remember it is part of this change, so I don't get any ideas about trying to backport this. 😅
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In my latest changes to this pr I bumped pulpcore lowerbounds to 3.113 to use FeatureNotImplementedError from pulpcore. Is that ok or too big of a jump for you?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My first thought was: Feel free to bump it to what ever version is needed. However, my second thought is:
Do we want to backport all or some of these changes to already released release branches? If yes, then bumping the pulpcore version a bunch suddenly becomes a factor. Right now we have:
- pulp_deb main requires
pulpcore>=3.107.0 - pulp_deb 3.9 requires
pulpcore>=3.85.0 - pulp_deb 3.8 requires
pulpcore>=3.85.0
Looking at that, we probably just don't want to backport these changes to 3.8 or 3.9. So the question becomes: Is 3.113 as opposed to 3.107 for main branch an issue? My intuition is: not really.
=> I am back to "feel free to require 3.113".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What would be the reason for backporting features? It does not make sense in most cases :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What would be the reason for backporting features? It does not make sense in most cases :)
In the case of this refactor of all our existing exceptions the reason to backport would be to avoid merge conflicts with bugfixes we need to backport. This might be less work overall if (a) it wasn't for the pulpcore dependency issues and (b) such merge conflicts are likely. But given (a) is not the case, and (b) seems unlikely, I don't think it makes sense here.
aKlimau
force-pushed
the
add-pulp-exceptions
branch
from
d0790a5 to
0ddecd2
Compare
Assisted-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
aKlimau
force-pushed
the
add-pulp-exceptions
branch
from
0ddecd2 to
1433538
Compare
4 participants
Assisted-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 noreply@anthropic.com
📜 Checklist
See: Pull Request Walkthrough