[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)

[torsava]

@torsava commented on this pull request.



> +
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    """To allow this script to be importable (and its classes/functions
+       reused), actions are performed only when run as a main script."""
+
+    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(prog=argv[0])
+    group = parser.add_mutually_exclusive_group(required=True)
+    group.add_argument('-P', '--provides', action='store_true', help='Print Provides')
+    group.add_argument('-R', '--requires', action='store_true', help='Print Requires')
+    group.add_argument('-r', '--recommends', action='store_true', help='Print Recommends')
+    group.add_argument('-C', '--conflicts', action='store_true', help='Print Conflicts')
+    group.add_argument('-E', '--extras', action='store_true', help='Print Extras')
+    group_majorver = parser.add_mutually_exclusive_group()
+    group_majorver.add_argument('-M', '--majorver-provides', action='store_true', help='Print extra Provides with Python major version only')
+    group_majorver.add_argument('--majorver-provides-versions', action='store',

> I'm mostly thinking of potential field parsing bugs. I'm thinking of if people call it twice with two comma separated lists. I don't know if we really want to make that case possible...

The reason I'm suggesting it is that `--majorver-provides-versions` doesn't have a short form (and it's so specific that I don't think it should), and it would result in very long calls, e.g. in Fedora we would need:

    --provides --majorver-provides-versions 2.7 --majorver-provides-versions 3.8 --normalized-names-format pep503 --normalized-names-provide-both

I can actually make a test for all the possible ways to call `--majorver-provides-versions` so it should be safe to implement it both ways.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195#discussion_r415696889
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20200427/473f8e13/attachment-0001.html>