Pulp

Is this strictly limited to black or do we also have this problem for other dependencies like coverage and flake8?

daviddavis wrote:

Is this strictly limited to black or do we also have this problem for other dependencies like coverage and flake8?

I have not checked, but looking at the mechanism, i sure think so.

I think this task is problematic. Take these scenarios for example:

- A plugin writer doesn't store their deps in test_requirements.txt but maybe uses a different file name
- A plugin writer is requiring a package like black indirectly. For example, they might be using flake8-black which requires black.

We provide a base set of packages when bootstrapping a plugin and I think that should suffice. It's pretty obvious when you're missing a dependency and it's easy to fix. I don't think we should check that the package is being required somehow when updating a plugin's files. It's not worth the effort.

@daviddavis, I agree w/ your reasoning here. Does the test-requirements.txt in the plugin_template have black in it, itself?

I see it in here so I think we're ok without the additional check.

Yes, and we have it for plugins too. It gets included by flake8-black which depends on black.

https://github.com/pulp/plugin_template/blob/master/templates/test/test_requirements.txt.j2#L4