Closed dmaljovec closed 1 year ago
For example, we use pip-compile
to generate lockfiles for all of our requirements, and we are getting breakage in the following use case:
docs.in
(input file)
mkdocs
mkdocs-material
mkdocstrings
mkdocs-gen-files
mkdocs-literate-nav
mkdocs-section-index
mkdocs-techdocs-core
pytkdocs[numpy-style]
pip-compile --pip-args='--no-input' docs.in
(command to generate a documentation lockfile)
...
There are incompatible versions in the resolved dependencies:
Markdown<4.0,>=3.3 (from mkdocstrings==0.15.2->-r docs.in (...))
Markdown==3.2.2 (from mkdocs-techdocs-core==0.2.1->-r docs.in (...))
markdown>=3.2 (from mkdocs-material==7.3.6->-r docs.in (...))
Markdown>=3.2.1 (from mkdocs==1.2.3->-r docs.in (...))
FWIW, if I pip install mkdocs-tech-docs
first and then install the rest of these requirements, pip
complains that my Markdown
is incompatible, but I am able to run techdocs-cli generate --no-docker
or mkdocs build
without error. Perhaps, I am not exercising the incompatible features?
Hey there! Yeah, looks like the strict pinning is coming from a problem with planuml (check out https://github.com/backstage/mkdocs-techdocs-core/pull/37 for details).
Happy to loosen that restriction if we can prevent the issue described.
Closing this out now, as our dependency on markdown has been loosened!
Great work on this project!
I am wondering if the requirement pins in your dependency chain are all hard requirements? We are trying to use
mkdocstrings
in conjunction with this package for a Python 3.9 application and are getting a conflict onMarkdown
stemming from here: https://github.com/backstage/mkdocs-techdocs-core/blob/main/requirements.txt#L12. Is it true that you are not currently supporting latter versions of theMarkdown
package? Or was this possibly an overly conservative pinning?