Skip to content

MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (modeling)#16940

Merged
pllim merged 1 commit intoastropy:mainfrom
neutrinoceros:modeling/rfc/pth_checks
Oct 10, 2024
Merged

MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (modeling)#16940
pllim merged 1 commit intoastropy:mainfrom
neutrinoceros:modeling/rfc/pth_checks

Conversation

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Contributor

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

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 force-pushed the modeling/rfc/pth_checks branch from fdeba73 to 842ef81 Compare September 4, 2024 14:44
@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros marked this pull request as ready for review September 4, 2024 15:02
@pllim
Copy link
Member

pllim commented Sep 4, 2024

Does this supersede #16927 ?

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Contributor Author

Oh, good catch, I missed that these were targeting the same sub-package !
The answer is (mostly) no: the present PR is minimalist but #16927 contains other valuable work from @MridulS for the test sub directory (test_* files have their own set of ignored rules in .ruff.toml, so it can be done separately).
I would recommend merging this one first, as I need to come back to #16927 later anyway.

@pllim pllim added this to the v7.0.0 milestone Sep 4, 2024
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can f.write be replaced with write_text?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

you got it !

@pllim pllim added no-changelog-entry-needed Extra CI Run cron CI as part of PR labels Sep 4, 2024
@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros force-pushed the modeling/rfc/pth_checks branch from 842ef81 to 12cfb5e Compare September 4, 2024 17:14
Copy link
Member

@pllim pllim left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Diff looks fine. Since this is generic path handling not related to actual fitting algorithm, I think I am comfortable enough to approve myself. Let's wait for the CI though.

Thanks!

@pllim
Copy link
Member

pllim commented Sep 4, 2024

Hmm. I see this error

      File "./astropy/table/setup_package.py", line 17, in get_extensions
        Extension(
      File "/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/setuptools/extension.py", line 130, in __init__
        super().__init__(name, sources, *args, **kw)
      File "/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/setuptools/_distutils/extension.py", line 110, in __init__
        raise AssertionError("'sources' must be a list of strings")
    AssertionError: 'sources' must be a list of strings

but it is from #16939 ?

@astrofrog
Copy link
Member

@neutrinoceros - could you rebase?

@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros force-pushed the modeling/rfc/pth_checks branch from 864a55b to a8e6f9c Compare October 10, 2024 06:05
@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Contributor Author

@astrofrog done !

@pllim pllim merged commit 5b92216 into astropy:main Oct 10, 2024
@pllim
Copy link
Member

pllim commented Oct 10, 2024

Thanks!

@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros deleted the modeling/rfc/pth_checks branch October 10, 2024 20:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants