@Flamefire Can you clarify (in the PR description, and with a comment in the easyblock) why this is needed?

It was "just missing". So the question worth a comment would rather by why it does not need to be this way.

If we don't do this we only call the configure_step of PythonPackage, not of Cargo which isn't what we want, do we?

IIRC how the Python MRO works we could always use super().configure_step() and it would end up calling each configure method exactly once. But that would need to be done in the whole stack, i.e. at least also in PythonPackage which seems like a too big of a change right now. We'd likely need to test all easyblocks deriving from PythonPackage and add a (dummy) configure_step in EasyBlock

Currently MRO will find PythonPackage.configure_step´ and runs that. And as that doesn't call any other configure_step` none is run.

It was "just missing". So the question worth a comment would rather by why it does not need to be this way.

If we don't do this we only call the configure_step of PythonPackage, not of Cargo which isn't what we want, do we?

Currently only PythonPackage.configure_step would be called, indeed.

>>> class A():
...     def test(self):
...         print('A.test')
...
>>> class B():
...     def test(self):
...         print('B.test')
...
>>> class C(A,B):
...     pass
...
>>> c=C()
>>> c.test()
A.test

But note that Cargo.configure_step is empty currently, so I'm still not sure what the point is of this PR...

@Flamefire You are changing Cargo.configure_step in:

• Create lockfile for Cargo package if missing #3995

So then the changes being made here should be included in that PR. In isolation it just doesn't make much sense to me...

So then the changes being made here should be included in that PR. In isolation it just doesn't make much sense to me...

#3995 did include this PR, although rather intended for easier testing as merging the PRs individually might be easier for drafting release notes.

merged via:

• Create lockfile for Cargo package if missing #3995