Update meta.yaml #52270
Update meta.yaml #52270
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request updates the Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
recipes/iseq/meta.yaml (1)
Line range hint
13-14: Consider incrementing the build number.Since this is a dependency update that could affect runtime behavior, consider incrementing the
build: numberfrom 1 to 2.build: noarch: generic - number: 1 + number: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
recipes/iseq/meta.yaml(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
recipes/iseq/meta.yaml (2)
Line range hint 15-17: LGTM! Good use of run_exports.
The run_exports section with max_pin="x" is correctly configured, which helps maintain compatibility across package updates.
25-25: Verify compatibility with sra-tools.
The strict version pinning of aspera-cli ==4.14.0 might affect compatibility with sra-tools >=2.11.0. Please ensure this specific version is compatible with the allowed range of sra-tools versions.
Let's verify the compatibility:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can make the following observations:
- The GitHub issues search in sra-tools repository shows that while there are some issues related to aspera-cli integration, none of them indicate version-specific incompatibilities between sra-tools and aspera-cli 4.14.0.
- The issues are mostly about configuration, authentication, and network-related problems rather than version compatibility issues.
- The ripgrep search shows that aspera-cli 4.14.0 is only referenced in the iseq recipe, suggesting this is a new version being introduced.
Let me verify one more aspect about sra-tools compatibility:
Strict version pinning of aspera-cli is acceptable
The investigation shows no evidence of compatibility issues between aspera-cli 4.14.0 and sra-tools >=2.11.0. The strict version pinning is acceptable because:
- No compatibility constraints were found in the sra-tools recipe
- No documented issues exist regarding version conflicts between these tools
- The tools operate independently, with aspera-cli serving as a transport mechanism for sra-tools
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if there are known compatibility issues between aspera-cli 4.14.0 and sra-tools
# Search for any compatibility discussions or issues
gh api graphql -f query='
{
search(query: "repo:ncbi/sra-tools aspera-cli", type: ISSUE, first: 5) {
nodes {
... on Issue {
title
body
url
}
}
}
}
'
# Check if this version is used in other bioconda recipes
rg -l "aspera-cli.*4\.14\.0"
Length of output: 7447
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check sra-tools recipe for any aspera version constraints
rg -p "aspera" recipes/sra-tools/meta.yaml
# Check if there are any other recipes that use both sra-tools and aspera-cli
rg -l "sra-tools.*aspera-cli|aspera-cli.*sra-tools"
Length of output: 96
Update the dependency aspera-cli in meta.yaml to aspera-cli ==4.14.0
Please read the guidelines for Bioconda recipes before opening a pull request (PR).
General instructions
@BiocondaBot please add labelcommand.@bioconda/corein a comment.Instructions for avoiding API, ABI, and CLI breakage issues
Conda is able to record and lock (a.k.a. pin) dependency versions used at build time of other recipes.
This way, one can avoid that expectations of a downstream recipe with regards to API, ABI, or CLI are violated by later changes in the recipe.
If not already present in the meta.yaml, make sure to specify
run_exports(see here for the rationale and comprehensive explanation).Add a
run_exportssection like this:with
...being one of:{{ pin_subpackage("myrecipe", max_pin="x") }}{{ pin_subpackage("myrecipe", max_pin="x.x") }}{{ pin_subpackage("myrecipe", max_pin="x.x") }}(in such a case, please add a note that shortly mentions your evidence for that){{ pin_subpackage("myrecipe", max_pin="x.x.x") }}(in such a case, please add a note that shortly mentions your evidence for that){{ pin_subpackage("myrecipe", max_pin=None) }}while replacing
"myrecipe"with eithernameif aname|lowervariable is defined in your recipe or with the lowercase name of the package in quotes.Bot commands for PR management
Please use the following BiocondaBot commands:
Everyone has access to the following BiocondaBot commands, which can be given in a comment:
@BiocondaBot please update@BiocondaBot please add labelplease review & mergelabel.@BiocondaBot please fetch artifactsYou can use this to test packages locally.
Note that the
@BiocondaBot please mergecommand is now depreciated. Please just squash and merge instead.Also, the bot watches for comments from non-members that include
@bioconda/<team>and will automatically re-post them to notify the addressed<team>.