Add upip.py and pip.py dummy modules for reverse "compatibility" #820
Conversation
This file contains 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
Added upip.py and pip.py, identical. These files throw an ImportError. mip\'s manifest.py also altered to load as modules. The purpose is to alert users guided to install with deprecated pip/upip (prior to 1.20.0) to instead use mip. Signed-off-by: Adam G <adam@adammakesthings.dev>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hi all, first PR here. Let me know if I did something wrong.
I noticed many packages in various places (github, Python package index, blogs/guide websites, etc) still guide users to install either from a custom index like PyPi or micropython-lib using upip. As of v1.20.0 these are both deprecated by mip and removed, leaving users confused with a module not found error.
My simple fix is 2 dummy packages bundled with mip that when imported throw an ImportError with an explanation and link to the Micropython page on package management with mip, which for me was surprisingly difficult to find without knowing the new name "mip" (which doesn't follow the old pattern of "u"+package name many are familiar with.) It certainly would have saved me a bit of time.
Assuming my fork has no formatting issues (functionality is fine, tested on ESP32 w/ mip) I can't see why it would be a problem - it's a lightweight fix and other deprecated/renamed modules have done this or similar so there's precedent.
Thanks for reviewing!