Log file Viewer

[17:23:01] <dstufft> jaraco: I tweeted about setuptools 8.0b1 and the pip PR, got a bunch of RTs, a few people are saying they tried it and it worked, nobody has said it broke anything (I did find one instance, but it was a crazy specifier that I submitted a PR to that project so that it actually made sense)

[17:24:39] <dstufft> It was "SQLAlchemy>=0.8.4,<=0.8.99,>=0.9.7,<=0.9.99"

[17:24:48] <dstufft> which lol I couldn't tell you what version that _should_ install

[17:27:31] <Wooble> I sort of know what they're trying to say, but IMO that shouldn't match anything.

[17:28:59] <dstufft> they were trying to say (>=0.8.4 AND <=0.8.99) OR (>=0.9.7 AND <=0.0.99)

[17:29:20] <dstufft> but I don't feel bad if it breaks things where people used comma's to represent both AND and OR

[17:29:38] <Wooble> actually considering the example "PickyThing<1.6,>1.9,!=1.9.6,<2.0a0,==2.4c1" that doesn't seem all that bad.

[17:33:04] <xafer> dstufft, is there any plan/syntax to allow (>=0.8.4 AND <=0.8.99) OR (>=0.9.7 AND <=0.0.99) ?

[17:34:16] <dstufft> xafer: currently there is not. I wrote down some notes about a PEP that will add something like that but it's not super high on my priority list

[17:35:08] <dstufft> my ideas thus far are either using and, or and parens to be more expresive or add more operations, like exlcusion ranges

[17:41:32] <xafer> k and currently the ',' means AND ?

[17:42:13] <xafer> ok found the answer in pep440 :)

[17:46:53] <dstufft> xafer: depends on what currently you mean :D, in PEP 440 it's AND, in setuptools it's.... confusing

[17:56:49] <xafer> hopefully things will unconfuse themselves :)

[21:06:48] <maker> hello. If I run "python setup.py develop", my test dependencies (i.e. 'test_require' values) are not installed in the virtualenv.

[21:06:52] <maker> Is this intended?

[21:07:24] <maker> If no, then shall I open a bugreport for this? If yes, how can I install test dependencies via "python setup.py stuff"?

[21:08:02] <maker> (.. and maybe report a documentation bug somewhere, 'cuz I don't see this thing mentioned anywhere)

[21:37:34] <dstufft> maker: that's expected behavior

[22:11:16] <maker> dstufft: and, how I am supposed to install what's inside my test_require?

[22:12:53] <dstufft> maker: it gets installed when you run setup.py test

[22:15:01] <maker> dstufft: I know, though I am thinking about the use-case where the developer wants to run a specific TestCase using trial, py.test, whatever.

[22:15:53] <maker> And by that I mean "run directly". Sound strange to me there's no way to install all requirements needed in order to perform this action :(

[22:17:42] <maker> s/Sound/Sounds/

[22:49:56] <jaraco> maker: I use pytest myself, and I use pytest-runner to invoke specific tests in the context of the tests_require dependencies.

[22:50:30] <jaraco> pytest-runner allows the tests to be invoked as so: python setup.py ptr --addopts="--pdb tests/special_test.py"

[22:51:20] <jaraco> I created pytest-runner for just that purpose.

[22:51:32] <jaraco> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pytest-runner

[22:54:02] <dstufft> I just use tox

[22:54:04] <jaraco> In this way, tests_require are never "installed" per se, but are downloaded and added to the environment when tests are run.

[22:54:24] <dstufft> jaraco: did you see my earlier message btw?

[22:54:32] <jaraco> dstufft, I did. That's good news.

[22:54:41] <jaraco> I installed it in my environment as well.

[22:54:47] <jaraco> Though I haven't installed anything since.

[22:55:33] <dstufft> jaraco: awesome

[22:56:35] <dstufft> PEP 440 might actually be a real thing soon

[22:56:36] <dstufft> :D:D

[22:56:51] <jaraco> No doubt.

[22:57:20] <jaraco> Maybe after another week or so we can roll it out on pypi.

[22:58:26] <dstufft> that makes me think, I should probably test mixed setups

[22:58:38] <dstufft> older setuptools, newer pip, newer setuptools, older pip

[22:58:44] <dstufft> I think it'll be fine

[22:59:01] <dstufft> pip vendors pkg_resources and the only other things we do is call setup.py commands