[Add]: support for non PEP 440 spec versions

[rudra-iitm]

• Implemented support for versions that do not adhere to the PEP 440 standard. PEP 440 dictates that version numbers should follow the format 'N.N[.N]', whereas the example "debian/20200505dfsg0-2" does not comply with this standard.
• This pull request addresses the error/warning captured in the attached screenshot.

[sergio-costas]

And that's why I separated major, minor and revision: because that way, if the version number is like that, we could just use "major" ;-)

[sergio-costas]

Can you add an unitary test for this, and fix that test error, please?

[rudra-iitm]

Can you add an unitary test for this, and fix that test error, please?
@sergio-costas

• Sure I will add a unitary test for this
• I am having difficulty identifying the root cause of the test error. The error message indicates "E1101: Module 'pkg_resources.extern' does not have a 'packaging' member (no-member)," but this is incorrect. The 'pkg_resources.extern' module indeed contains the 'packaging' member.

[sergio-costas]

Mmm... I think that pkg_resources is being deprecated. Maybe that's the problem... (but don't take this for granted, I'm not sure).

[rudra-iitm]

@sergio-costas I'm relatively new to open-source development and currently navigating the process of adding a unit test for the aforementioned code. I'm encountering some challenges in this regard. I would appreciate it if you could provide some guidance or ideas on how I can successfully implement the unit test.

[sergio-costas]

@rudra-iitm Of course. Exactly where are you having trouble?

[sergio-costas]

I mean... I presume that you know about the unittest module and the basis for adding an unitary test into the unittest.py file...

[rudra-iitm]

@sergio-costas
I have a basic understanding of unittest, and my last pull request involved making some minor changes to unittest. However, I'm struggling to come up with a logic for testing the code above.

[sergio-costas]

I would create an instance of ProcessVersion, and do some calls to _getVersion() passing a %v (and others, like XXXX/%v) as format string, and several version strings with and without that format, to ensure that it detects them correctly.

[rudra-iitm]

@sergio-costas, could you kindly review my recent commit that includes tests for version variation and beta releases in the unit tests?

[sergio-costas]

Looks good, but I thing that it would be a good idea to add other formats not supported. For example, passing as format "debian%V" and as version "1.2.3".

[sergio-costas]

Thus to check that it doesn't try to parse entries that should be rejected.

[rudra-iitm]

@sergio-costas Included tests for version variations and beta releases that are considered invalid.

[sergio-costas]

Looks good. Thanks!