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

spurious percent-encoding in output #6030

Closed
emillon opened this issue Jun 18, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #6055
Closed

spurious percent-encoding in output #6030

emillon opened this issue Jun 18, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #6055
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@emillon
Copy link
Contributor

emillon commented Jun 18, 2024

Hi,
I'm using opam 2.2.0~beta3 on windows. I've noticed that a package name is percent-encoded in an error message:

C:\Users\etien\src\dune>opam install -y lwt cinaps core_bench "csexp>=1.3.0" js_of_ocaml js_of_ocaml-compiler "mdx>=2.3.0" menhir ocamlfind ocamlformat.0.26.1 "odoc>=2.4.0" "ppx_expect>=v0.16.0" ppx_inline_test
 ppxlib ctypes "utop>=2.6.0" "melange>=4.0.0-414"
[ERROR] Package conflict!
  * No agreement on the version of ppx%5fexpect:
    - ppx_expect >= v0.16.0
    - core_bench → ppx_jane < v0.15 → ppx_expect < v0.15
  * No agreement on the version of ocaml-base-compiler:
    - (invariant) → ocaml-base-compiler = 4.14.1
    - core_bench → core = 109.24.00 → ocaml < 4.01.0 → ocaml-base-compiler = 3.09.1

The first occurrence is displayed as ppx%5fexpect, while the rest is displayed correctly as ppx_expect.
Maybe that's a styling issue, since the invalid one is printed in bold while the other ones are using normal text (this on windows Terminal).

image

@dra27
Copy link
Member

dra27 commented Jun 24, 2024

This isn't Windows-specific:

opam@eb69dfc8d71b:~$ opam-dev install core_bench.v0.15.0 "ppx_expect>=v0.16.0"
[ERROR] Package conflict!
  * No agreement on the version of ppx%5fexpect:
    - ppx_expect >= v0.16.0
    - core_bench = v0.15.0 -> ppx_jane < v0.16 -> ppx_expect < v0.15
  * Incompatible packages:

IIRC the _ is not valid in CUDF, so it looks as though we're not translating a package name back in the "No agreement on the version" part of the message.

@dra27
Copy link
Member

dra27 commented Jun 24, 2024

This is also present in 2.1 (but not 2.0) - looks like it would have come in with #4349 (although it's not necessarily an issue directly with the PR)

@rjbou rjbou self-assigned this Jun 24, 2024
@rjbou rjbou added this to the 2.3 milestone Jun 27, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants