@MatthieuSarter, thanks for all the hard work you have put in here. It looks good and I was not thinking about this kind of feature or how to implement. One suggestion would be to change the configure name to a longer more descriptive namerolling_partial_tags oradd_partial_tags because I personally didn't understand whatrolling_tags were at first glance. I think the crucial difference is that they are partial version numbers and its a bit less important to denote them as rolling as PSR's activity is only for the current version. But we will bake in the ability for--force which enables PSR to work over in a repeating fashion.

Thanks for adding the descriptions and doc updates and timeline for testing rather than just passing it to me to complete (surprising how many people do this). To help understand the test suite, note there is the tests/ directory that is split into unit & e2e folders and how to run the test suite is documented inContributing.rst or you can check out the.github/workflows/validate.yml configuration. I am more critical about the e2e than unit tests since that takes a lot of the guess work out of will it work for our thousands of users (3.8K repos on GitHub, average of 440K downloads/month). I think yours does fit mostly in the e2e test bucket anyway because you are depending on a configuration setting and then proving that tags are created or updated. With this said, e2e tests generally use our built in repo fixtures, which build actual test repositories of various branching, merging, and release strategies, then the tests apply configuration settings viaupdate_pyproject_toml fixture and then execute the main entrypoint with the correct subcommand's cli args passed to click'sCliRunner. Since your changes are all around theversion subcommand, they should be added into thetests/e2e/cmd_version/ folder, possibly put into its own file astest_version_bump is quite large. As you will see any tests intest_version_bump assert that all actions have taken place so we know that this variation doesn't have a weird side impact on something we didn't consider. You should be considering at a minimum, a test for when previous partial version tags don't exist and then when they do previously exist. I don't think your change will need to test all repo variants but probably a few as it would be worth considering if prereleases exist or a prerelease is requested whenadd_partial_tags is enabled. Likely this would berepo_w_trunk_only_*_commits,repo_w_trunk_only_n_prereleases_*_commits (note all repo fixtures start withrepo_*). One trick to testing is to capture the expected results from the prebuilt repos and then as part of the setup, reverse the repo down to the previous commit or tag and then validate that PSR versioned appropriately. You can also extract commits and version lists from the build definition through theget_ fixtures.

Recommendadd_partial_tags be set toFalse as the default since we would be adding this as a new user configured feature intov9. Your test would set this value true during setup. You shouldn't need a new repo fixture just apply previous partial version tags manually after usingget_version_strings_from_repo_def(repo_result["definition"]) for updating existing partial tags test.

It is probably also worth noting that arepo_* fixture returns aBuiltRepoResult object which includes an openedRepo object and the resulting build steps (with commit hashes). Repo fixtures also change the current directory to a temporary pytest folder so you can assume that you are in the fake project repo when runningrepo.git.* commands. For speed of iterative testing, we have a smart/dynamic cache of each repo fixture's start state in the.pytest_cache/d/psr-cached-repos/ and their definitions in.pytest_cache/v/psr/repos/. These are copied (rather than rebuilt) into the pytest temporary test directory so that each test is isolated from each test's git actions.

I did swap your PR to ready for review to see how your changes currently evaluate in the CI and nothing failed so you effectively added functionality without breaking anything (that we know of) which is awesome. Now we would just be looking for tests that exercise your new functionality (tag creations & updates) and any new ways that it would impact other non-default settings or environments. Good job so far!

@codejedi365 , thanks for your explanation, it will be helpfull to help me add tests :)

Regarding the name of the option, I used this name as it is the name I commonly encountered on other projects for naming such tags, especially in the Docker world (see here for instance:https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-Tanzu-Application-Catalog/services/main/GUID-apps-tutorials-understand-rolling-tags-containers-index.html ), but if you prefer an other terminology, I'm totally fine with it. Among your two suggestions, I would prefer rolling_partial_tags, which would both indicate that it enable rolling tags and that those tags are based on partial version (as opposed to rolling tags like "latest", without any version infos).

Regarding the name of the option, I used this name as it is the name I commonly encountered on other projects for naming such tags, especially in the Docker world (see here for instance:https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-Tanzu-Application-Catalog/services/main/GUID-apps-tutorials-understand-rolling-tags-containers-index.html ), but if you prefer an other terminology, I'm totally fine with it. Among your two suggestions, I would prefer rolling_partial_tags, which would both indicate that it enable rolling tags and that those tags are based on partial version (as opposed to rolling tags like "latest", without any version infos).

I appreciate the insight and thought considered for the name. As I continued writing my response I think I have settled on theadd_partial_tags as it best describes what it is doing to include the verb and subject. Adding the adjective ofrolling conflates with the result and impact of one possible activity or use case but is not ultimately what PSR is doing. The setting needs to be descriptive of the action PSR is doing only. I highly recommend though that your documentation of the setting value include the example in detail of the use case for rolling tags as for a primary reason of why to use the setting. This is where the resulting impact really can used to inform users of new possibilities.

@MatthieuSarter, Thinking about the tests a little more, I think it will be important to verify the following situations:

1. [Tag Creation] Very first release on a new project withadd_partial_tags = true (ie.repo_w_no_tags_*_commits)
2. [Tag Creation] Ongoing project that just decided to enable the featureadd_partial_tags = true (ie.repo_w_trunk_only_*_commits)
3. [Tag Update] Existing partial tags on previous release, next release is a patch release, must update both major & minor (ie.repo_w_trunk_only_*_commits)
4. [Tag Update & Create] Existing partial tags on previous release, next release is a minor release, must update the major partial tag & create new minor tag, while validating the old minor tag exists (ie.repo_w_trunk_only_*_commits)
5. [Tag Create & Maintain] Existing partial tags on previous release, next release is a major release, must create a new major partial tag & create new minor tag, while validating the old major & minor tags still exist (ie.repo_w_trunk_only_*_commits)
6. [Prerelease Validation] Whenadd_partial_tags = true, and a prerelease occurs, no partial tag is created? (ie.repo_w_trunk_only_n_prereleases_*_commits)
7. [build metadata tag creation] see question below
8. [build metadata change/tag update] no change in version but build metadata changed, partial major, minor, and patch updated.

Question: how would we consider handling a build metadata change release or just a release with build metadata? I feel like we should be creating a "partial" release from the full tag which would result in avX.X.X (fromvX.X.X+build.20241201). Either way, this situation creates the need for additional tests to characterize the expected behavior of PSR.

Note: I recommend using the fixturemocked_git_push: MagicMock to block and capture yourgit push activity and then evaluate it. You can also usepost_mocker: Mocker to capture the--vcs-release api upload as well which prevents errors as the domain's don't exist.

the force push change was to help resolve the conflict ingitproject.py for you as I just caused that one today.

@codejedi365 , just a little message to tell you I didn't forgot about my commitment to add tests to this PR, but I had a tough start of the year (flu, bike crash...) so I didn't have the opportunity to work on it yet.

@MatthieuSarter, thanks for the note, I was starting to debate if you would follow through as most just leave it to me to pick up where they left off. I'm glad you haven't.

I hope you feel better soon! It sounds like a rough start to 2025 for you--must be frustrating.

If you have seen the rebases, I have just been keeping what was written up to date with the latest version as stuff has refactored which should make it easier to pick up from.

@codejedi365, I finally had some time to start adding tests 🙂 Not much for now, but it's a start. I used test_version_bump.py::test_version_force_level as reference, and kept only what is pertinent for tag related checks (ie. dropped the check on version update in files, release creation in VCS, etc...).

Regarding the way of handling partial tag for prerelease, I think the answer is no update of the partial tags in this cases, as the partial tags should always point to a release, not a prerelease.

For now I opted for the same behavior in case of version with build metadata, as for me those versions are not release. But I'm not used to this versioning scheme, so I'm open to discussion about this, creating/updating partial tags up to the patch level also seems to be a reasonable option in this case.

I finally had some time to start adding tests 🙂 Not much for now, but it's a start.

@MatthieuSarter, Glad to hear!

I used test_version_bump.py::test_version_force_level as reference, and kept only what is pertinent for tag related checks (ie. dropped the check on version update in files, release creation in VCS, etc...).

I would rather you not drop the assertions in e2e tests. In a e2e test of version, they are all pertinent. As I stated above, it is on purpose to have all the checks so we know that this variation doesn't have a weird side impact on something we didn't consider.

Regarding the way of handling partial tag for prerelease, I think the answer is no update of the partial tags in this cases, as the partial tags should always point to a release, not a prerelease.

I concur that should be the outcome. We will want a test to ensure these do not move.

For now I opted for the same behavior in case of version with build metadata, as for me those versions are not release. But I'm not used to this versioning scheme, so I'm open to discussion about this, creating/updating partial tags up to the patch level also seems to be a reasonable option in this case.

Build metadata releases are official releases, they just include more specific information (generally the date). Note that the+ is the separator as opposed to the-. From the SemVer standard, build metadata is an additional labeling extension separate from pre-release but similar. The build metadata is not however taken into consideration for version precedence. After this research, I am feeling more confident we should implement partials to include patch, minor, major when set as a build-metadata. Although it is not factored into version precedence, I do think this would move the partial tags if you released a version with a new build metadata label. Example:

* 26bb37c (tag: v9.21.0+build.20250112, tag: v9.21.0, tag: v9.21, tag: v9) chore: Release 9.21.0+build.20250112* 98287c9 ci(build): change build steps (#1202)* 5093f30 (tag: v9.21.0+build.20250101) chore: Release 9.21.0+build.20250101       # <--- partials were here

@codejedi365 , I think I covered all the relevant cases now, so I marked the PR as ready for review. Sorry for having taken soooo long :-(

@MatthieuSarter, thanks for the hard work, I'll try to get this integrated this weekend

@codejedi365 , I just updated the tests to the new e2e infrastructure, to solve the failing tests

Oh wow, thanks! I didn't mean to leave that on you to accomplish, I have just been busy. But thanks!