-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24
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
More explicit logic for CONDA_LIBMAMBA_SOLVER_MAX_ATTEMPTS #394
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a6e6eeb
more explicit logic for CONDA_LIBMAMBA_SOLVER_MAX_ATTEMPTS
jaimergp 0520a1b
add news
jaimergp 6630bd5
let's see if anything breaks with 10 attempts
jaimergp d817f33
define MAX_SOLVER_ATTEMPTS_CAP
jaimergp dae4c3f
pre-commit
jaimergp 90db74e
Update conda_libmamba_solver/solver.py
jaimergp File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ | ||
### Enhancements | ||
|
||
* Add some boundary checks to `CONDA_LIBMAMBA_SOLVER_MAX_ATTEMPTS`. (#394) | ||
|
||
### Bug fixes | ||
|
||
* <news item> | ||
|
||
### Deprecations | ||
|
||
* <news item> | ||
|
||
### Docs | ||
|
||
* <news item> | ||
|
||
### Other | ||
|
||
* <news item> |
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would it be useful to prepopulate the max attempts at the start of the solve as a instance attribute, instead of inline, so it's easier to debug?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure if this might break some tests. It shouldn't, but by saving it as instance attribute we are assuming we are going to have the same number of attempts for every call to
solve_for_*()
(for the lifetime of the same instance). In some instances, that might be tied tolen(in_state.installed)
.So I'd rather keep it like it is because it's technically more correct and does not assume that "one instantiation, one solve".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds good, thank you!