In D2147#50755, @ardumont wrote:

I don't think this regexp is the right solution, it's quite fragile in case a package name uses one of the keywords.

Yes, it's fragile and we don't see any better solution right now.
That's how we did it initially, we improved the current version to be a tad better though.
And also it's tested even if it's limited.

A possible solution is for get_version to only accept URLs, and split the path to find the package name.

I'm not getting the difference with the current implem.
filename is extracted from the uri in any case...

I don't think this regexp is the right solution, it's quite fragile in case a package name uses one of the keywords. A possible solution is for get_version to only accept URLs, and split the path to find the package name.

I'm not sure that's a good idea. What about this:

fix argument names in API client.

• update docstrings as requested
• add migration script

I forgot I made this diff... so I did a new one from scratch: D2157

rebase

add missing changes

👍

I'm told these are already deleted in prod

and schema upgrade

Needs a migration script

Could you add a test?

rebase

add migration

Because I messed up git. Removed

• remove print
• remove stuff that wasn't supposed to be committed

In D2090#49800, @douardda wrote:

also replace boolean hypothesis strategy by pytest.mark.parametrize, so we do
not need to reset the storage in these tests (since the test is truly
executed twice).

meh.

I wonder how you're going to mark these tests as skipped

Note that it implies they are no longer run on the remote api tests.

I think the xfails should have a comment for future readers stumbling upon this commit.

I also prefer the new line-breaking style, there's less space wasted by indentations

Same as D2120: what about mocking the scheduler?

rebase

I just added a list of licenses (cf515829580fe1f2e7dee65f4514c7505cf0cd84). It offers suggestions based on what is written in the box. I'm not very happy with the UI but I don't know how to improve it.

Do you mean that users should be able to add arbitrary fields?

Resolved by 6259775.

Oh, you want to generate codemeta text even if it's invalid, then show an error?

The output is already always validated (before being generated)

Resolved by c566b37.