fix: use version sorting in codegen, not lexical#1174
Merged
Conversation
Previously, python-libjuju iterated over schemas keyed by their version string (e.g. '3.1.9') using lexical sorting. For a given facade version, a definition in a higher versioned schema was intended to overwrite any prior definition saved (see generate_facades function in facade.py). With lexical sorting, '3.1.10' would be sorted in between '3.1.1' and '3.1.2', which would not lead to the desired behaviour. This commit fixes this problem by using a tuple of integers as the sorting key. A special case is requried for the version string 'latest', and we use (9000, 9000, 9000).
james-garner-canonical
approved these changes
Oct 28, 2024
Contributor
|
/merge |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Cherry-picked from #1168 and simplified.
Rationale Juju micro versions can get larger than 9, e.g. 2.9.51.
When 3.5.10 comes around, we want it to take precedence over 3.5.9 and not get wedged between 3.5.1 and 3.5.2
Keeping the current codegen mode of operation where it starts with the oldest version and whacks some internal state on encountering a latter version.
(We'll deal with that in a separate PR)