Bump jinja2 minimal version #3200
Conversation
This should ensure that features like `is boolean` are available in jinja2 used by molecule. Related: ansible-community/molecule-vagrant#112
|
@apatard Why do you think we should avoid 3.x, in fact we use 3.x during testing as we did not cap its version. I did consider bumping the requirements to v3 but that version is quite new and I do not see any reason for doing that yet. Bumping should happen when we have reasons. |
|
Nothing really serious. I'm only thinking of:
|
| @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ install_requires = | |||
| cookiecutter >= 1.7.3 # dependency issues in older versions | |||
| dataclasses; python_version<"3.7" | |||
| enrich >= 1.2.5 | |||
| Jinja2 >= 2.10.1 | |||
| Jinja2 >= 2.11.3 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should not cap the Jinja version here because Ansible users will expect things to work with 2.11 and 3.x. After all, Ansible works with those versions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
fwiw, my remarks were about Jinja2 >= 2.11.3 vs Jinja2 >= 3.0.0.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ahh, OK. I misunderstood. Whenever someone talks about dependencies and semver, the upper bound is what comes to my mind.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably an upper bound like <4.0 would make sense but on the other hand experience told me that upper constraints should be added only when you have knowledge of something already breaking you. Otherwise is like lottery, in half of cases you prevent a bug, in the other half you introduce a time-bomb conflict which is not real and you endup having to move the bound up and make a hotfix.
This should ensure that features like
is booleanare available in jinja2 used by molecule.Related: ansible-community/molecule-vagrant#112