-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
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
Integrate python SDK into main python project #4625
Conversation
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #4625 will not alter performanceComparing Summary
|
a50821a
to
2bee55e
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, I added some questions. Do you know about the name conflict thing? I think we said that we'd include the SDK using another name, but that's perhaps step two. It might not be a problem but my hunch is that it would be.
|
||
from pydantic import BaseModel, Field | ||
from typing_extensions import Self |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are these changes something that happened when the wrong Python version was running? It doesn't seem like something that would be required.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes and No
it was uncovered because the tests did run with 3.10 instead of 3.12 but officially we should support 3.10 (pyproject.toml) so we shouldn't use a 3.11 feature.
optional = true | ||
packages = [ | ||
{ include = "infrahub", from = "backend" }, | ||
{ include = "infrahub_sdk", from = "python_sdk" } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm wondering how this will behave on systems where where we want to install both the SDK and infrahub-server if one of them overwrites the other. It should mostly be relevant for testing purposes like when we want to install infrahub-server
within the SDK repo during CI. I.e if the infrahub_sdk
folder gets overwritten by the latest package of what happens.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes for now there will be a conflict but I think the risk is limited for now.
it will take a few more steps to fix that, I've opened a new PR earlier today in the SDK repo that will get us closer opsmill/infrahub-sdk-python#80
# locust = "^2.20.1" | ||
# docker = "^7.0.0" | ||
# matplotlib = "^3.8" | ||
# pandas = "^2.2" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we remove this instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would like it keep it for now because we need to fix the scale tests altogether
2bee55e
to
10a7e5d
Compare
10a7e5d
to
7598cd5
Compare
Fixes #4234
This PR integrates the Python SDK directly into the main python project for Infrahub.
The end goal is to be able to publish
infrahub-server
to Pypi in order to use it to build integration tests for any projects depending on Infrahub.Not sure what happened in CI but the changes in this PR highlighted some issues with how we are configuring poetry in our own runner.