[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#42792] [PATCH] gnu: Add python-pydantic.
From: |
Mathieu Othacehe |
Subject: |
[bug#42792] [PATCH] gnu: Add python-pydantic. |
Date: |
Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:35:52 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hey Tanguy,
>> (uri (git-reference
>> (url "https://github.com/samuelcolvin/pydantic")
>> - (commit (string-append "v" version))))
>> + (commit (string-append "v" version))))
>> (file-name (git-file-name name version))
>> - (sha256 (base32
>> "1380s9k77g6q15by9fkxndczjk89q6xpz09jdrqip535xws2z3j8"))))
>> + (sha256
>> + (base32 "1380s9k77g6q15by9fkxndczjk89q6xpz09jdrqip535xws2z3j8"))))
>
> Thanks for paying attention to every details!!
> Actually, those things have been bothering me for quiet a while…
> They are not reported by `./pre-inst-env guix lint python-pydantic` or
> fixed by `emacs --script etc/indent-code.el gnu/packages/python-xyz.scm
> python-pydantic`. :-(
The first diff is fixed when running "./etc/indent-code.el
gnu/packages/python-xyz.scm python-pydantic" for me.
>
> Would the following have been acceptable?
>
> ```
>> + (sha256 (base32
>> + "1380s9k77g6q15by9fkxndczjk89q6xpz09jdrqip535xws2z3j8"))))
> ```
It is acceptable but the convention is to put "base32" on the next line.
>
> And what about this? (2-space indent instead of 1, like `add-before` below)
>
> ```
>> + (sha256
>> + (base32 "1380s9k77g6q15by9fkxndczjk89q6xpz09jdrqip535xws2z3j8"))))
> ```
No only one space here, this is also handled by the indent script for me.
>
>
>> (build-system python-build-system)
>> (arguments
>> '(#:phases
>> (modify-phases %standard-phases
>> - ;; Reported upstream:
>> <https://github.com/samuelcolvin/pydantic/issues/1580>
>> - ;; Not sure how to apply the suggested fix!?
>> + ;; Reported upstream:
>> + ;; <https://github.com/samuelcolvin/pydantic/issues/1580>.
>> + ;; Disable the faulty test as the fix is unclear.
>
> Much better, thanks!
> In retrospect, I realize that I should have put the question in the
> commit message for a maintainer to read, not in the package definition.
> Would that have been better?!
No it's perfectly fine in the package declaration :)
Hope I'm not bothering you to much with this boring syntactic stuff :p
Thanks,
Mathieu