-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
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
Declaring extras in constraints file installs also extra dependencies even if not instructed to #6628
Comments
@pfmoore @pradyunsg @uranusjr Do we need to resolve this before the 20.2b2, or do we just need to put a "known bug" item about it in the "migrating to the new resolver" guide? |
I believe this already does not work in the new resolver (it rejects the constraints file immediately). This is worth a mention in the guide, along with other changes we made to constraints, but it shouldn’t be categorised as a bug, but a behavioural difference IMO. This issue is describing a “bug” in the old resolver that the new one does not have, but some may consider this is a feature the new resolver doesn’t (and won’t) implement |
@uranusjr Is correct. This is a completely intentional change in constraints for the new resolver. I do think it needs clearly calling out in the release notes, though, as it's definitely a behaviour change and we'd need to get feedback on how it impacts people. |
Am addressing in #8491. |
@pradyunsg @pfmoore @uranusjr ok to close this or rename it? |
OK to close, given that we don't allow this form with the new resolver. |
Closing since #8491 is merged and there’s not much else to do here. |
Environment
19.1.1
3.7.2
KDE Neon
Description
In constraints file, when declaring a package with extras, all the dependencies of it get installed, even if actual requirement does not declare extras.
How to Reproduce
Output
This installs not only direct
requests
dependencies:But also
[security]
extras:Expected behavior
pip should install only direct dependencies, even if extras are declared in constraints file.
This is such a simple case and easy to reproduce, it must be expected behavior. But why? And where is it documented?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: