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

CEP request: Document MatchSpec #80

Open
2 tasks done
chenghlee opened this issue Jun 3, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #82
Open
2 tasks done

CEP request: Document MatchSpec #80

chenghlee opened this issue Jun 3, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #82

Comments

@chenghlee
Copy link

Checklist

  • I added a descriptive title
  • I searched open requests and couldn't find a duplicate

What is the idea?

MatchSpec is a fundamental conda construct, used in various places for things like dependency specifications and search (though arguably MatchSpec should not be used for the latter). However, to the best of my knowledge, there is currently no formal specification for MatchSpec beyond "what's in the code" (e.g., comments in conda/models/match_spec.py and tests/models/test_match_spec.py) and random bits of institutional/community knowledge.

We should provide such an official specification so developers and users in the conda ecosystem have a shared understanding of what MatchSpec is, and what it does and does not support.

Why is this needed?

Because "is this a valid MatchSpec?" is (a) an oddly difficult or (b) alarming question to answer; as in, conda install '*=*=*' does not result in an immediate InvalidMatchSpec error.

What should happen?

At least one CEP detailing what we currently support (and maybe don't support) as MatchSpecs. Note that we will probably want to evolve this specification to remove cases like *=*.

Additional Context

No response

@jaimergp jaimergp linked a pull request Jun 4, 2024 that will close this issue
@jaimergp
Copy link
Contributor

jaimergp commented Jun 4, 2024

Fiiine: #82. Just started by copying over the existing docstrings and making it a bit more consistent.

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 a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants