Repository navigation
fix: read files included with -r in the requirements.txt parser #551
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
scastlara
merged 2 commits into
elementsinteractive:main
from
memx13:fix/requirements-txt-r-includes
Oct 10, 2026
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🦉 🎯 Correctness
The comparison
source == self.file_pathwill always evaluate toFalsebecause it compares apathlib.Pathobject with a string. This leads to a newFileHandlerinstance being created unnecessarily for the main file, which contradicts the comment's intent to reuseself.file_handler.To fix this, you should compare two
Pathobjects. For robustness, it's best to compare their resolved absolute paths.More information about this comment
src/twyn/dependency_parser/parsers/requirements_txt_parser.py5332YesYesThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the review!
On the line comment about
source == self.file_path: both sides arePathobjects here.sourceis converted withsource = Path(source)on the line just above, andself.file_pathis already aPath(set inAbstractParser.__init__). So for the entry file the comparison evaluates toTrueandself.file_handleris reused as intended; only-rincludes fall through to a freshFileHandler. I double-checked by running it — for the entry filehandler is self.file_handlerisTrue, and the parse result is correct.That said, I'm happy to switch to
source.resolve() == Path(self.file_path).resolve()if you'd prefer it for extra robustness against symlinked or non-normalized paths. Just let me know.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey! No worries, AI did an oopsie as is tradition. The PR looks good! Thanks a lot for the contribution!
I guess this bug has been here since a long time ago; we never catched it cause we don't use requirements files.