feat: use craft-platforms build planning #501
Conversation
This also fully deprecates BuildPlanner classes, but doesn't remove them.
lengau
force-pushed
the
work/391/CRAFT-3321/deprecate-planner
branch
from
0fc5954
to
f84844d
Compare
| BuildPlannerClass: type[models.BuildPlanner] = models.BuildPlanner | ||
| BuildPlannerClass: Annotated[ | ||
| type[models.BuildPlanner] | None, | ||
| pydantic.Field( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what does annotating this as a pydantic.Field do?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In auto-generated documentation for the AppMetadata class it'll use those pydantic docs - in this case the deprecation warning.
| @@ -261,6 +273,40 @@ def _resolve_project_path(self, project_dir: pathlib.Path | None) -> pathlib.Pat | |||
|
|
|||
| return (project_dir / f"{self.app.name}.yaml").resolve(strict=True) | |||
|
|
|||
| def get_build_plan( | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So are applications expected to override this? For instance rockcraft, that needs to call get_rock_build_plan() instead of the default get_platforms_build_plan()?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes - instead of implementing a BuildPlanner class.
| return build_planner.get_build_plan() | ||
|
|
||
| return craft_platforms.get_platforms_build_plan( | ||
| base=cast(str, yaml_data.get("base")), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do the validation errors look like now? For example, what gets output if a project file is missing the base?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's a good point. I should probably move up the pydantic validation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe too late to suggest this but have you considered just having BuildPlannerClass.get_build_plan() return a list of craft_platform BuildInfos?
|
Closing per team discussion - this will need to be handled separately. |
This also fully deprecates BuildPlanner classes, but doesn't remove them.
tox?