-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
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
Add support for pulling username from keyring subprocess provider #12748
Open
jfly
wants to merge
2
commits into
pypa:main
Choose a base branch
from
jfly:add-keyring-subprocess-get-creds
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1 @@ | ||
Add support for pulling username from keyring subprocess provider |
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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 found the pre-existing code hard to grok. This line in particular really confounds me: why does
keyring_provider
influence how we set up the test environment? I'd expect that to be only dependent uponkeyring_provider_implementation
(which is the change I've made in this PR).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.
After your refactoring
keyring
won't be importable whenkeyring_provider in [None, "auto"] and keyring_provider_implementation == "disabled"
. (first subcondition is false, second is true)Which might be relevant because of:
So the test should fail, so far so good.
I'm starting to suspect I did this so
keyring
would be installed whenkeyring_provider == "auto" and keyring_provider_implementation == "disabled"
when what I actually was thinking about is thekeyring_provider == "disabled" and keyring_provider_implementation == "import"
case.Maybe it is an idea to ask for verbose output and check for the
Keyring provider set:
lines to make that more explicit? Although, that maght be better as a seperate test.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, this was intentional. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding these variable names? I read them as:
keyring_provider_implementation
: this is the way i'm going to set up my environment for this test (is keyring installed in this venv, is is discoverable via PATH in a different venv, or is it not installed at all)keyring_provider
: this is the keyring provider i'm going to request when i invoke pipSo, it's intentional that if
keyring_provider_implementation == "disabled"
, then yeah, keyring won't be imprtable.But again, it's very possible I'm misunderstanding the intent of these tests. Guidance appreciated.
Yeah, I personally not in love with this elaborate usage of parameterize + xfail. Tests can fail for all sorts of reasons other than the expected reason! I think it would be better to assert on the expected failures. (IMO, that would be better to do in a separate PR)