-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 203
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
Fix the checksum type check #4164
Closed
Flamefire
wants to merge
4
commits into
easybuilders:develop
from
Flamefire:fix-checksums-verification
Closed
Fix the checksum type check #4164
Flamefire
wants to merge
4
commits into
easybuilders:develop
from
Flamefire:fix-checksums-verification
+52
−13
Conversation
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
2 tasks
Flamefire
force-pushed
the
fix-checksums-verification
branch
from
January 6, 2023 17:17
9978251
to
011f80c
Compare
Flamefire
force-pushed
the
fix-checksums-verification
branch
from
January 10, 2023 10:03
011f80c
to
597dca8
Compare
Converted to draft to first specify how checksums especially "None" should work |
Flamefire
force-pushed
the
fix-checksums-verification
branch
2 times, most recently
from
May 12, 2023 07:20
54d9628
to
9b018f3
Compare
Specifying as ready as the inability to specify alternate checksums in a dict blocks e.g. easybuilders/easybuild-easyconfigs#19231 |
Flamefire
force-pushed
the
fix-checksums-verification
branch
from
November 16, 2023 07:45
9b018f3
to
da9deff
Compare
Flamefire
force-pushed
the
fix-checksums-verification
branch
from
April 16, 2024 07:59
292a5ee
to
d7db1bf
Compare
Can this (and easybuilders/easybuild-docs#104) be addressed? It is also a dependency of #4159 |
The `None` case was missed and due to the unrestricted `tuple` elem_type it may return valid for actually invalid entries. So restrict that beeing overly cautious so it may wrongly return invalid. But in that case the conversion function will be called which can do more elaborate verification. Add test checking for None in checksums.
…bility Not sure if that makes sense but at least for EB 4.x we need this.
Flamefire
force-pushed
the
fix-checksums-verification
branch
from
August 8, 2024 07:34
d41bb8d
to
61f616e
Compare
2 tasks
Closed for #4578 |
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.
The
None
case was missed and due to the unrestrictedtuple
elem_type it may return valid for actually invalid entries.So restrict that beeing overly cautious so it may wrongly return invalid.
But in that case the conversion function will be called which can do more elaborate verification.
Add test checking for None in checksums.
Extracted from #4159, see #4159 (comment)
Also required for #4142 as the check now correctly handles a
None
value in the dictRequires resolution of
checksums
easyconfig parameter easybuild-docs#104