-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.5k
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
Relax requirements.txt restrictions #11199
Relax requirements.txt restrictions #11199
Conversation
Hi @itayporezky. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
That looks good, but I am inclined to consolidate all the commits in this pull request into one. WDYT? Also, please pay attention to the CI errors related to Ansible lint, as it appears to be related to the Jinja dependency. |
If we go that route, there is two things we should do:
|
f81a482
to
a95eb05
Compare
|
/ok-to-test |
1. This sounds kinda risky, vast majority install ansible via ansible and not ansible-core, many people wont install dependencies manually from galaxy.yaml IMO
I don't know why, I was convinced you could install ansible collection via requirements.txt. I probably made a confusion with requirements.yml.
2. Running `pip compile` on the requirements.txt in the PR will result in this:
I'm not sure how would you maintain this file, how do you prevent dependabot from creating PR on dependencies and who would generate this compilation and update the requirements once the time comes?
...
We would use --generate-hashes, but you can interact with dependabot with comments and config, and I think it can handle pip hashes.
Regardless, because of 1 this would wait for when we switch to collection-only usage for kubespray.
|
Please re-test, |
Please re-test,
The CI automatically re triggered each time you push, thankfully we don't have to retest manually ^.
Looks like netaddr is required as well for the IP manipulation filters
|
I'm not sure why the CI failed |
That's because the testcase file has been renamed in the Ubuntu 24 PR. Rebasing should fix it
|
57d5f99
to
9b3462d
Compare
Hmm.. i'm sorry, i might have rebased wrongly. |
9b3462d
to
fd476fd
Compare
Not sure what is going on with pre-commit CI.. |
Check #11211 it's a bit broken right now but we should sort this out
shortly.
|
PR needs rebase. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
6692420
to
809ea57
Compare
I've rebased after pre-commit fixes, i'm not sure why the current errors happen. it doesn't seem to be related to my PR IMO. |
/approve |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ant31, itayporezky The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Oh okay thanks ! |
@itayporezky You comment: #11199 (comment)
I don't see this mentioned anywhere in the docs? Perhaps the Dockerfile should be updated to install these dependencies too? |
We should frankly delete the inventory_builder script, it does not offer much compared to simply edit an ini-style Ansible inventory (which IMO are easier to read).
But no, the docker image is to run kubespray, and the inventory builder script is not all required for that (which is why it's in contrib/)
|
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
Special notes for your reviewer:
Each commit has a specific message describing why the specific package was removed. please review on per-commit basis.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: