Detect and indicate dry runs with the conda init commands
#15211
Conversation
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
jaimergp
reviewed
Sep 14, 2025
jaimergp
reviewed
Sep 14, 2025
jaimergp
reviewed
Sep 14, 2025
jaimergp
reviewed
Sep 14, 2025
jaimergp
reviewed
Sep 14, 2025
CodSpeed Instrumentation Performance ReportMerging #15211 will not alter performanceComparing Summary
|
|
Thanks @jaimergp, I wasn't sure whether to use |
soapy1
previously approved these changes
Sep 15, 2025
|
I have resolved the merge conflicts that occurred with recent merges. Thank you! |
ForgottenProgramme
approved these changes
Sep 16, 2025
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
This PR updates the
print_plan_results()function inconda.core.initialize, which is called as part of theconda initCLI. The issue was that commands likeconda init --dry-run <shell>did not clearly indicate that the operation was a dry run and did not actually make any changes to the shell commands. This could mislead users into thinking that their shell configuration or dotfiles had been altered.I have added a few print statements that activate when
context.dry_runis truthy. I'd welcome any feedback on how these statements should be worded. Additionally, I believe that in a future PR, we could improve this further by changing the keywords so thatResult.MODIFIEDin the output table reads "would be modified" instead of simply "modified" when a dry run is executed.Closes #15097
Related to #15096
Checklist - did you ...
newsdirectory (using the template) for the next release's release notes?Add / update outdated documentation?