First-pass at a recipe conversion function

[schuylermartin45]

This is very much an early POC. There are many TODOs and it is far from perfect. There are known bugs and gaps, documented in the TODOs

The primary goal of this PR is to implement most of the features discussed in CEP-13 and see how feasible it is to build a conversion utility in percy.

So far, so very good. As noted in the function, I am trying to use as many features of the current parser as possible to:

• Reduce engineering effort
• Gives us flexibility if we decide to expand support past a single conversion function

For less than a day's worth of work, I think this is a pretty solid POC and shows how the parser can make this work less painful.

Annoyingly I can't seem to add @wolfv to the PR despite this being an open project. I will ping him separately, but maybe that's a limitation we need to investigate @jezdez if we want community feedback. I imagine it's tied to some IT permissions group control.

[JeanChristopheMorinPerso]

@schuylermartin45 you can only add reviewers if they are in the "contributor" group if I'm not mistaken.

[wolfv]

looks really good! awesome work :)

If you wire it up with a CLI I'd be excited to try it on a few real-world recipes.

[schuylermartin45]

looks really good! awesome work :)

If you wire it up with a CLI I'd be excited to try it on a few real-world recipes.

percy has some click CLIs in the project. I suppose I can bump that ask up in the priority list :)

[schuylermartin45]

@wolfv I have added a basic CLI. Assuming you have the percy conda environment installed and activated (make dev is probably the easiest way to create the environment), the command is:

percy convert [-o OUTPUT] FILE

By default, the recipe is dumped to STDOUT. Warnings/Errors always dump to STDERR. I don't have any exception handling so if you throw it at a complicated recipe, the parser might blow up on construction.

Here's the output on a simple recipe

schema_version: 1

context:
  name: types-PyYAML
  version: 6.0.12.12

package:
  name: ${{ name|lower }}
  version: ${{ version }}

source:
  url: https://pypi.io/packages/source/${{ name[0] }}/${{ name }}/types-PyYAML-${{ version }}.tar.gz
  sha256: 334373d392fde0fdf95af5c3f1661885fa10c52167b14593eb856289e1855062

build:
  number: 0
  script: ${{ PYTHON }} -m pip install . --no-deps --no-build-isolation --ignore-installed --no-cache-dir -vv
  skip: ${{ true if py<36 }}

requirements:
  host:
    - pip
    - python
    - wheel
    - setuptools
  run:
    - python

test:
  imports:
    - types
  requires:
    - pip
  commands:
    - pip check
    - if: unix
      then: test -f $SP_DIR/yaml-stubs/__init__.pyi

about:
  home: https://github.com/python/typeshed
  summary: Typing stubs for PyYAML
  license: Apache-2.0 AND MIT
  license_file: LICENSE
  license_family: OTHER
  description: |
    This is a PEP 561 type stub package for the PyYaml package.
    It can be used by type-checking tools like mypy, pyright, pytype,
    PyCharm, etc. to check code that uses PyYaml.
  dev_url: https://github.com/python/typeshed
  doc_url: https://pyyaml.org/wiki/PyYAMLDocumentation

extra:
  recipe-maintainers:
    - fhoehle
    - conda-forge/mypy

[wolfv]

Awesome! I got it to run with the following pixi.toml:

[project]
name = "percy"
channels = ["conda-forge"]
platforms = ["linux-64", "osx-arm64"]

[tasks]
install = "pip install -e ."

[dependencies]
black = "*"
isort = "*"
make = "*"
mypy = "*"
python = ">=3.11"
pytest = "*"
pytest-cov = "*"
pytest-xdist = "*"
pylint = "*"
pip = "*"
click = ">=8.1.7"
conda = "*"
jinja2 = "*"
pyyaml = "*"
types-pyyaml = "*"
requests = "*"
types-requests = "*"
"ruamel.yaml" = "*"
conda-build = "*"
jsonschema = "*"
types-jsonschema = "*"
pre-commit = "*"

You could add more tasks (like lint) and also depenedencies between the tasks can be done (with a depends_on = ["build"]...

I'll play around with it! Looks good so far :)

[schuylermartin45]

I forgot to return POSIX error codes in the CLI. I aim to get that done today and then I think I'm at the point where I'd like to merge this first iteration in.

[wolfv]

Looks great to me! Let me know if you want to go over any additional transformations (of course this can go in a future PR).

For example, the new tests section is a bit different (but could be easily adjusted from the previous one, essentially tests need to be split into multiple list elements) :)

[schuylermartin45]

@beeankha and I walked through this yesterday offline. Given the general positive conversation in this thread, I'm going to say that this POC is in a good spot to merge.