Skip to content
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

Use new approach to binding fixtures #3468

Open
pedro-psb opened this issue Mar 15, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

Use new approach to binding fixtures #3468

pedro-psb opened this issue Mar 15, 2024 · 5 comments

Comments

@pedro-psb
Copy link
Member

I would like to have a similar bindings API as we have now in pulpcore (after this change).

As a developer, this approach feels more ergonomic. Other benefits should be equivalent to those discussed in the linked PR.

@mdellweg
Copy link
Member

The only thing to hold you back is that this might be an unwarranted request to bump the pulpcore dependency.

@pedro-psb
Copy link
Member Author

I'm not sure if I understand why it would cause an unwarranted bump request. Do you mean it would require pulpcore bumping because we would import BindingsNamespace (thus requiring a version where it exists)? We can do a try-catch and hardcode that class on exception, it looks like the code is simple enough for us to do that.

But anyway, any good plan to get around that?

@mdellweg
Copy link
Member

I'm not sure if I understand why it would cause an unwarranted bump request. Do you mean it would require pulpcore bumping because we would import BindingsNamespace (thus requiring a version where it exists)? We can do a try-catch and hardcode that class on exception, it looks like the code is simple enough for us to do that.

But anyway, any good plan to get around that?

You nailed it. That's exactly what i was pointing at. Is it a good idea to require more recent pulpcore in order to use more recent testing features only? And maybe it is.

@pedro-psb
Copy link
Member Author

pedro-psb commented Mar 28, 2024

Is it a good idea to require more recent pulpcore in order to use more recent testing features only?

I really can't tell if its a good idea or not. But to avoid the risk of any trouble this might cause, how about just copying BindingNamespace over? Assuming it is the only dependency required, it's a very simple one.

@pedro-psb
Copy link
Member Author

We're already using the new pulpcore bindings fixtures after pulpcore 3.55 bump (here), so I guess its safe to proceed with this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants