Skip to content

MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (table)#16939

Merged
taldcroft merged 1 commit intoastropy:mainfrom
neutrinoceros:table/rfc/pth_checks
Sep 4, 2024
Merged

MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (table)#16939
taldcroft merged 1 commit intoastropy:mainfrom
neutrinoceros:table/rfc/pth_checks

Conversation

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Contributor

@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros commented Sep 4, 2024

Description

Ref #16924
This is in the continuation of #16060

  • By checking this box, the PR author has requested that maintainers do NOT use the "Squash and Merge" button. Maintainers should respect this when possible; however, the final decision is at the discretion of the maintainer that merges the PR.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Sep 4, 2024 •
edited by taldcroft
Loading

Thank you for your contribution to Astropy! 🌌 This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainers who will review this pull request of some common things to look for.

  • Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals?
  • Do the proposed changes follow the Astropy coding guidelines?
  • Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy testing guidelines?
  • Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy documentation guidelines?
  • Is rebase and/or squash necessary? If so, please provide the author with appropriate instructions. Also see instructions for rebase and squash.
  • Did the CI pass? If no, are the failures related? If you need to run daily and weekly cron jobs as part of the PR, please apply the "Extra CI" label. Codestyle issues can be fixed by the bot.
  • Is a change log needed? If yes, did the change log check pass? If no, add the "no-changelog-entry-needed" label. If this is a manual backport, use the "skip-changelog-checks" label unless special changelog handling is necessary.
  • Is this a big PR that makes a "What's new?" entry worthwhile and if so, is (1) a "what's new" entry included in this PR and (2) the "whatsnew-needed" label applied?
  • At the time of adding the milestone, if the milestone set requires a backport to release branch(es), apply the appropriate "backport-X.Y.x" label(s) before merge.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Sep 4, 2024

👋 Thank you for your draft pull request! Do you know that you can use [ci skip] or [skip ci] in your commit messages to skip running continuous integration tests until you are ready?

@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros mentioned this pull request Sep 4, 2024
Closed
@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Contributor Author

neutrinoceros commented Sep 4, 2024

The image test failure looks both unrelated and not real ? I don't see a diff but the RMS is still non-zero 🤷🏻‍♂️

@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros marked this pull request as ready for review September 4, 2024 14:32
taldcroft
taldcroft reviewed Sep 4, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@taldcroft taldcroft left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks generally fine, I just have a couple of questions.

astropy/table/setup_package.py
name=f"astropy.table.{source.stem}",
define_macros=[("NPY_NO_DEPRECATED_API", "NPY_1_7_API_VERSION")],
sources=[os.path.join(ROOT, source)],
sources=sources,
Copy link
Member

@taldcroft taldcroft Sep 4, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it known that Extension can take a list of Path instead of a list of str? Does this code get tested when building/installing astropy in CI testing?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros Sep 4, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's been supported by setuptools since version 72.2.0, which is why I set an explicit minimum requirement.

@taldcroft
Copy link
Member

taldcroft commented Sep 4, 2024

BTW, are any of the fixes done automatically by ruff?

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Contributor Author

neutrinoceros commented Sep 4, 2024

Nope, ruff only detects them, and I refactor manually, so any mistake is mine !

@taldcroft taldcroft added this to the v7.0.0 milestone Sep 4, 2024
taldcroft
taldcroft approved these changes Sep 4, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@taldcroft taldcroft left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me.

@taldcroft taldcroft enabled auto-merge (squash) September 4, 2024 16:04
@taldcroft taldcroft merged commit eb1dfbd into astropy:main Sep 4, 2024
@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros deleted the table/rfc/pth_checks branch September 4, 2024 16:07
@pllim pllim mentioned this pull request Sep 4, 2024
Merged
1 task
pllim
pllim reviewed Sep 4, 2024
View reviewed changes
astropy/table/setup_package.py
Copy link
Member

@pllim pllim Sep 4, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think something in here broke "exotic archs", see #16940 (comment)

Copy link
Contributor Author

@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros Sep 4, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Quick guess: is this from an arch were setuptools 72.2.0 and newer aren't available yet ?

Copy link
Member

@pllim pllim Sep 4, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does that mean we need to revert this PR?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros Sep 4, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yup, I'm seeing version 68.1.2. Let me revert this bit !

Copy link
Contributor Author

@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros Sep 4, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

#16942 👀

@pllim
Copy link
Member

pllim commented Sep 4, 2024

For all remaining open PTH PRs that touch setup code, we should run Extra CI. FYI.

@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros mentioned this pull request Sep 4, 2024
Merged
1 task
@saimn saimn mentioned this pull request Dec 6, 2024
Merged
1 task
@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros mentioned this pull request Dec 6, 2024
Merged
1 task
@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros mentioned this pull request Jun 10, 2025
Merged
1 task
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@pllim pllim pllim left review comments

@taldcroft taldcroft taldcroft approved these changes

@WilliamJamieson WilliamJamieson Awaiting requested review from WilliamJamieson WilliamJamieson is a code owner

@nstarman nstarman Awaiting requested review from nstarman nstarman is a code owner

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

dev-automation installation no-changelog-entry-needed table testing

Projects

None yet

Milestone

v7.0.0

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@neutrinoceros @taldcroft @pllim