treat collections in packages as immutable#663
Conversation
|
I tend to say it's worth it.
Maybe, we should add a comment in the Is there a reason why you left |
|
both of your suggestions sound reasonable: if you're active and interested then feel free to make updates directly else I'll try to get to it - but likely not for at least a few days |
|
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!
|
radoering
left a comment
radoering
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For transparency: I'm planning to merge this shortly before the core release because I think merging it now without a release will make development on other Poetry PRs that require core changes more difficult.
dimbleby
force-pushed
the
shallow-copy
branch
from
5d019df to
4d4d75e
Compare
justifying the use of a shallow copy in Package.clone()
radoering
force-pushed
the
shallow-copy
branch
from
4d4d75e to
a281c5b
Compare
|
2 participants
intended as a more-or-less maintainable version of #618. See also python-poetry/poetry#8671
by annotating collection types in packages as immutable, we "prove" that the shallow copy is a safe way to clone them
of course this is still not too hard to break: just by adding in something mutable later.
I see performance improvement during locking by about 20-25% on a couple of sample projects. It's not a complete no-brainer to me that this is change is safe enough to accept, but I think it probably is: and that's a good amount of performance to leave on the table. Still, I'm ready to be overruled.