Update publishing action for metadata 2.5 support - #140
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Owner
|
Thanks for fixing this. Publishing to TestPyPI is very finicky. |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The TestPyPI publish run rejects both distributions with
InvalidDistribution: Invalid distribution metadata: unrecognized or malformed field 'import-name'. The uploaded wheel and sdist use metadata 2.5, but the pinned v1.14.0 publisher uses Twine 6.1.0 and packaging 25.0.Update the publisher pin in both release workflows to v1.14.2, which includes metadata 2.5 support. The workflow triggers, permissions, environments and publish inputs are unchanged. The regular PyPI workflow uses the same old pin, so it gets the same preventive update.
Validation used the original wheel and sdist from the failed run, after checking the downloaded artifact digest. Both files fail strict checks with the old publisher and pass with the new publisher on macOS and in the official Linux publisher images. The Linux checks ran offline with read-only inputs. A parsed YAML comparison confirms that only the two publisher references changed. No upload, OIDC exchange or attestation generation was performed.