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

Fix handling of default sources #232

Draft
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

riccardoporreca
Copy link
Contributor

Resolves #231, also

  • making sure to handle separately the case of unspecified --file arguments from the case when --file environment.y(a)ml is explicitly used
  • reviewing the checks for unspecified sources, also covering the usage of the defaults as fall-back when the lockfile exists

* Resolves conda#231, reviewing and extending the logic for supporting .yaml extension (conda#99).
from the case of files specified and same as default, while keeping the CLI default to have it in the `--help` (conda#231).
even when falling back from the source files in the lockfile (conda#231).
@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Aug 10, 2022

Deploy Preview for conda-lock ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 5098453
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/conda-lock/deploys/62f44437b3d3f500095ccfc3
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-232--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
Copy link
Contributor Author

The failure on Windows seems to be for a "flaky" test, but I cannot re-run the job on this repo

@riccardoporreca
Copy link
Contributor Author

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

@riccardoporreca
Copy link
Contributor Author

@maresb, similar to #230, I would be happy to rebase this PR as #231 is still an issue with the current code-base.

Let me know if I can go ahead with this or I should rather wait for some ongoing work-in-progress to be first merged to the main branch.

@maresb
Copy link
Contributor

maresb commented Mar 15, 2023

Sorry, no time to look at this in any detail this week, but generally speaking, if the issue isn't resolved, I'd recommend just going for the fix. We'll have to deal with any merge conflicts as they arise, likely via the greedy algorithm. Thanks a lot for all the work!!!

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.

Fix logic for running without --file sources
2 participants