10000 Breadth first search for conflicts by soapy1 · Pull Request #9006 · conda/conda · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

Breadth first search for conflicts #9006

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 19 commits into from
Aug 1, 2019
Merged

Breadth first search for conflicts #9006

merged 19 commits into from
Aug 1, 2019

Conversation

soapy1
Copy link
Contributor
@soapy1 soapy1 commented Jul 26, 2019

No description provided.

@soapy1 soapy1 requested a review from a team as a code owner July 26, 2019 22:25
@soapy1 soapy1 force-pushed the bfs branch 2 times, most recently from 76e45a8 to 021a434 Compare July 26, 2019 22:28
@soapy1 soapy1 mentioned this pull request Jul 29, 2019
@soapy1 soapy1 force-pushed the bfs branch 5 times, most recently from def59fd to fedc4b1 Compare July 30, 2019 21:38
@@ -409,14 +424,33 @@ def build_conflict_map(self, specs, specs_to_add=None, history_specs=None):
# records_per_name is a completely arbitrary number here. It is meant to gather more
# than just one record, to explore the space of dependencies a bit. Doing all of them
# can be an enormous problem, though. This is hopefully a good compromise.
records_per_name = 7
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

removing this limit may slow things down a lot. Have you done any kind of speed test? Especially with the anaconda metapackage - the more packages involved, the slower this will go.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Tried this out with anaconda metapackage, yep slows it down a ton!

conda/resolve.py Outdated

for spec in spec_order:
allowed_specs = sdeps[spec]
ga = GeneralGraph([_ for allowed_pkgs in allowed_specs.values()
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can we use the graph we already have above, but filter it somehow? Creation of the graph is pretty expensive.

@soapy1 soapy1 force-pushed the bfs branch 2 times, most recently from 70d6796 to c070855 Compare July 31, 2019 21:28
@github-actions
Copy link

Hi there, thank you for your contribution to Conda!

This pull request has been automatically locked since it has not had recent activity after it was closed.

Please open a new issue or pull request if needed.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the locked [bot] locked due to inactivity label Aug 24, 2021
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 24, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
locked [bot] locked due to inactivity
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants
0