Add candidate-extra evaluation to Marker.evaluate - #1395
Open
r266-tech wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Adds a keyword-only
extrasparameter toMarker.evaluatefor evaluating a marker against candidate extras. The complete marker expression is evaluated independently for each candidate, names are normalized with existing PEP 685 rules, an empty set returnsFalse, and the candidate set takes precedence overenvironment['extra']; existing scalar evaluation andextras/dependency_groupsmembership behavior remain unchanged.Adds focused tests for the issue's
Requirement("a[b,c]")/extra == 'b'example, normalization, empty and nonmatching sets, and whole-expression conjunctions, plus documentation indocs/markers.rst.git diff --checkand the repositorylintsession passed. The focused candidate-extra assertions passed in completed test sessions, but the broadertestsnox command exceeded its runtime budget and did not complete; its selective coverage report also failed the repository's 100% threshold, so the full suite result is inconclusive.