Skip to content
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

Add NodeJS and Python providers #218

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 21, 2024
Merged

Conversation

eemcmullan
Copy link
Collaborator

@eemcmullan eemcmullan commented May 1, 2024

Closes #202

if !a.analyzeKnownLibraries {

// python and node providers do not yet support dep analysis
if !a.analyzeKnownLibraries && (providers[0] != pythonProvider && providers[0] != nodeJSProvider) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We eventually need to not hard code this but be able to tell from the provider caps IMO

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

there is nothing to do right now, but something to consider in the future that I didn't want to lose track off

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@shawn-hurley
Copy link
Contributor

I am wondering if this can be used for the .m2 cache for the Java providers as well.

@shawn-hurley
Copy link
Contributor

Overall it looks good, the only big concern is that the python/nodejs servers also still need to have the ability to pull the deps down while initing but that should be solved in those providers.

I wonder if we call it dependency-cache-folder or something similar, the idea being that the underlying thing may add to this?

Copy link
Contributor

@shawn-hurley shawn-hurley left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM besides minor naming concern

Copy link
Contributor

@pranavgaikwad pranavgaikwad left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nice work! small requests

cmd/analyze.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
cmd/analyze.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
cmd/analyze.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
cmd/analyze.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
cmd/analyze.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: Emily McMullan <[email protected]>
@eemcmullan eemcmullan merged commit dc6caf1 into konveyor:main May 21, 2024
3 checks passed
@eemcmullan eemcmullan deleted the other-provs branch August 27, 2024 15:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add other supported generic providers
3 participants