Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ENH: Restrict dependencies versions for release #67

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 10, 2024

Conversation

jhlegarreta
Copy link
Contributor

@jhlegarreta jhlegarreta commented Dec 10, 2024

Restrict dependencies versions for release.

Restrict the supported Python versions to those where the tool is known to be working (>=3.9, <3.12).

@jhlegarreta jhlegarreta force-pushed the PinVersionsForTag branch 3 times, most recently from 2ed7e54 to c8e2b58 Compare December 10, 2024 16:22
Restrict dependencies versions for release.

Restrict the supported Python versions to those where the tool is known
to be working (>=3.9, <3.12).
@jhlegarreta jhlegarreta changed the title ENH: Pin dependencies versions for release ENH: Restrict dependencies versions for release Dec 10, 2024
@jhlegarreta
Copy link
Contributor Author

@demianw I think tagging/releasing a version supporting the versions that are known to work would be wise at this point, before #60, #63 and #64 are merged. I will undo the changes once tagged/released to continue work on the mentioned PRs.

@demianw
Copy link
Owner

demianw commented Dec 10, 2024

Good idea ! You're doing great work ! (and you should add yourself to the author list of the package in a PR :) )

@demianw demianw merged commit a653517 into demianw:master Dec 10, 2024
7 checks passed
@jhlegarreta jhlegarreta deleted the PinVersionsForTag branch December 10, 2024 16:32
@jhlegarreta
Copy link
Contributor Author

jhlegarreta commented Dec 10, 2024

The test_query_eval.py::test_not_in test has failed three times and had failed once previously IIRC. Re-triggering makes it pass at some point, but wondering whether there is some randomness in the package that should be controlled better.

https://github.com/demianw/tract_querier/actions/runs/12260686070/job/34205901512#step:6:160

@demianw
Copy link
Owner

demianw commented Dec 10, 2024

I agree that we should check whether the test passes/does not pass due to a random case that's not handled well. I will open an issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants