add jupyter-(docprovider|collaboration-ui) 1.0.0

[bollwyvl]

Checklist

• Title of this PR is meaningful: e.g. "Adding my_nifty_package", not "updated meta.yaml".
• License file is packaged (see here for an example).
• Source is from official source.
• Package does not vendor other packages. (If a package uses the source of another package, they should be separate packages or the licenses of all packages need to be packaged).
• If static libraries are linked in, the license of the static library is packaged.
• Package does not ship static libraries. If static libraries are needed, follow CFEP-18.
• Build number is 0.
• A tarball (url) rather than a repo (e.g. git_url) is used in your recipe (see here for more details).
• GitHub users listed in the maintainer section have posted a comment confirming they are willing to be listed there.
• When in trouble, please check our knowledge base documentation before pinging a team.

References:

• unblocks jupyter-collaboration v3.0.0 jupyter-collaboration-feedstock#18

[github-actions]

Hi! This is the staged-recipes linter and your PR looks excellent! 🚀

[conda-forge-admin]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipes/jupyter-docprovider/meta.yaml, recipes/jupyter-collaboration-ui/meta.yaml) and found it was in an excellent condition.

[bollwyvl]

@conda-forge/help-python @conda-forge/jupyter-collaboration ready for review

[davidbrochart]

Thanks.

[ocefpaf]

Do we really need this? It will became a complication as we move to the new recipe format.

[bollwyvl]

Do I need the version so people don't get broken stuff? Yes. Does it need the if? No, but I'm tired of fixing bot dupes, and this seems to confuse it enough that it doesn't touch things it shouldn't.

If the new format is preferred, I can just use that instead... last time I excitedly tried, i was told it wasn't ready to be used (even though the example was in here)....

[ocefpaf]

We are in slowly transition. I would not merge this if it was another maintainer but I'm sure you will be active and update this when the new format rolls out... Still I recommend removing as much jinja as possible from your existing and future recipes.

[bollwyvl]

removing as much jinja as possible

Oh, that's my goal when living that conda-forge life. I'd use native YAML anchors, but multi-outputs hate that. But having made enough "forgot to update a python version" errors, DRY wins. I think the new format will improve the situation (even though I think it could have used more existing techniques like JSON-e, patch, etc. and don't like that it doesn't declare a $schema for completion) but it's a big net step forward, and the significant speed improvements are certainly welcome!