Incompatibility with JupyterLab core npm packages 3.0.10
See original GitHub issueDescription
We use a custom version of JupyterLab which depends on the following dependencies that I upgraded:
Doing that broke the LSP extension in that the check if not uri.startswith(virtual_documents_uri)
in “virtual_documents_shadow.py” at line 141 now fails. This is due to an additional “/” that gets inserted in the file URI as per this example:
uri file://c:/XXX/.virtual_documents/1%20Migration%20Guide.ipynb doesn't start with file:///c:/XXX/.virtual_documents
Reproduce
Bump up to the latest version of JupyterLab.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 2 years ago
- Comments:16 (13 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Unable to run 'jupyter lab build' with jupyterlab 3.2.5 ... - GitHub
Got "14.8.0" error Found incompatible module. I have another env with nodejs 15.14.0 , same error. jupyterlab 3.2.4 was able to run that ......
Read more >JupyterLab Changelog — JupyterLab 3.6.0b0 documentation
In JupyterLab 3.0, a new recommended way of distributing and installing extensions as Python pip or conda packages is available. Installing such extensions...
Read more >How do I prevent this error during building an extension for ...
I am finding a difficulty in the following extension tutorial for jupyter labs. While building the tutorial using pip install -ve.
Read more >@jupyter-widgets/jupyterlab-manager NPM | npm.io
Version compatibility. Prior to JupyterLab 3.0, use the appropriate command from the following list to install a compatible JupyterLab extension. For JupyterLab ......
Read more >Cannot run a development install using theme-cookiecutter
jupyter --version jupyter core : 4.6.1 jupyter-notebook : 6.0.3 qtconsole ... I reinstalled npm packages after downgrading the conflicting ...
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
Maybe just strip the prefix before preforming the starts with check, whether it is file:// or file:///? Regular expression would be an alternative, but maybe better to avoid it.
I think maybe the latter (making the server side comparison more lax), would be a good idea too in case something like this happens again — according to the issue you identified I get the impression that this kind of url parsing will remain problematic. I’m happy to create a PR to that effect if you want to tell me how you think the comparison should be performed.