[Fix] Wrong assumption of Package.revision being non-optional
#128
Conversation
This is not the case for registry packages.
| @@ -268,6 +268,10 @@ The Settings Bundle and the UI-components are currently localized in the followi | |||
|
|
|||
| > If a language has mistakes or is missing, feel free to create an issue or open a pull request. | |||
|
|
|||
| ## Known limitations | |||
|
|
|||
| - SwiftPackageList won't include license files from packages that are located in a registry like Artifactory. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would like to play around with that but there is still not a single public registry I could easily use, right?
| public let revision: String | ||
|
|
||
| /// Could be `nil` if the package is located in a registry. | ||
| public let revision: String? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is technically a breaking changes and requires a major version bump but I think we can get it in with a patch release because its more of a bug fix and I don't think that it's utilized often.
FelixHerrmann
changed the title
Package.revision being non-optional
|
Wow thanks for the quick response! That is also why it was important for me to add the unit test case, so you could see how a Package.resolved entry for a registry package looks like. |
|
Gotcha, once there is one I will give it a try. I think it fixes big repository sizes, intercom-ios for example is > 2 GB, current workaround is to have a dedicated repository just for the SPM manifest like intercom-ios-sp. The test case is very helpful, thanks again! |
My team recently had to move a company internal package to Artifactory and this broke SwiftPackageList parsing the
Package.resolvedfile on consumer side. There was a wrong assumption of the fieldrevisionalways being set. However this field is optional (see SPM code: https://github.com/swiftlang/swift-package-manager/blob/release/6.0.2/Sources/PackageGraph/PinsStore.swift#L443) and will be empty forregistrypackages.I fixed this assumption and made that property optional. I also added a test case with a sample entry on how a registry package looks in the
Package.resolvedfile.Furthermore, just to be explicit about what is supported and what isn't, I added a section in the Readme file to note that SwiftPackageList is not able to get license files out of packages received from registries. Registry packages are usually closed source, so it won't matter (usually), but stating it explicitly might save someone quite a lot of headache.