Respect dropped (but explicit) indexes in dependency groups #17012
+103
−1
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
charliermarsh
force-pushed
the
charlie/d
branch
from
b41369b to
229766a
Compare
charliermarsh
temporarily deployed
to
uv-test-registries
GitHub Actions
Inactive
charliermarsh
force-pushed
the
charlie/d
branch
from
229766a to
9ec3bff
Compare
charliermarsh
temporarily deployed
to
uv-test-registries
GitHub Actions
Inactive
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Summary
There are a class of outcomes whereby an index might not be included in "allowed indexes", but could still correctly appear in a lockfile. In the linked case, we have two
default = trueindexes, and one of them is also named. We omit the seconddefault = trueindex from the list of "allowed indexes", but since it's named, a dependency can reference it explicitly. We handle this correctly forproject.dependencies, but the handling was incorrectly omitting dependency groups.Closes #16843.