WIP: new variant resolving / rendering #1122
Open
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Note: missing in this PR are updated handling of |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This is an attempt to separate things better into "stage 1" and "stage 2" rendering.
Stage 1:
Get all used variables from Jinja and conditional expressions and then render these out for all combinations that are found based on the variant config. This already creates a number of different combinations.
Stage 2:
From the rendered recipes (no more Jinja, conditionals) we need to get all the
requirementsat build/link time and create additional variants.Stage 3:
Topologically sort and de-duplicate outputs (with multiple outputs, these renders might create duplicate outputs, for example if you have a C library and multiple variants for Python bindings).