MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (io.votable) by neutrinoceros · Pull Request #17002 · astropy/astropy

neutrinoceros · 2024-09-12T08:29:25Z

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 · 2024-09-12T08:29:50Z

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 · 2024-09-12T08:29:52Z

👋 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?

pllim · 2024-09-12T21:07:59Z

astropy/io/votable/validator/result.py


-    def get_attribute_path(self):
-        return os.path.join(self.get_dirpath(), "values.dat")
+    def get_attribute_path(self) -> Path:


I'd rather not. This is API change and I use this downstream in astroquery.

In general, we should probably leave validator alone.

I agree this should be done in a separate PR as an API change. But I think this is a good thing to do long term. We should probably also consider deprecating getter and setter methods in favor of @property.

Oh I don't know why I thought this would be private API. I'll revert the breaking change for now, but it should be simple enough to futureproof astroquery against such a change: wrapping all calls to this methods with os.fspath() would do the trick.

I revamped this as a set of Path returning private properties + str returning public accessors. No API breakage yet, but a clear path forward: properties can be made public and accessors deprecated. What do you guys think ?

nstarman

LGTM.
I don't like how many files are untested, which is no fault of this PR, but does mean we should get explicit approval from the sub-package maintainer.

astropy/io/votable/connect.py

nstarman · 2024-09-13T02:42:43Z

astropy/io/votable/validator/result.py


-    def get_attribute_path(self):
-        return os.path.join(self.get_dirpath(), "values.dat")
+    def get_attribute_path(self) -> Path:


I agree this should be done in a separate PR as an API change. But I think this is a good thing to do long term. We should probably also consider deprecating getter and setter methods in favor of @property.

astropy/io/votable/validator/html.py

astropy/io/votable/validator/result.py

pllim · 2024-09-20T18:52:10Z

Can you please rebase? I just merged the config one and I just want to be sure this PR still okay as it stands. Never know if there is something subtle or not. Thanks!

neutrinoceros · 2024-09-21T07:52:17Z

done

pllim · 2024-09-23T19:58:22Z

astropy/io/votable/validator/result.py

I am still not sure about the validator changes. Is there a reason why we cannot just exclude it from this ruff check? If you must, I think it should be a separate PR because not everyone that uses io.votable use validator, but I do use the validator and I need extra time to vet it downstream.

bsipocz

With the potential downstream implications, I would very strongly prefer this not being merged into 7.0. It's just simply too close to feature freeze and we don't need a fire artificially added on the pyvo/astroquery tables messing up our already set timelines and roadmaps.

pllim · 2024-09-23T21:17:43Z

@bsipocz , but you would still be open to this getting merged for v7.1? I can move the milestone if that is the case.

bsipocz · 2024-09-23T23:12:01Z

but you would still be open to this getting merged for v7.1

Having a ~6month prep period for API changes (dare I say that are added for no good reasons) is more acceptable; but again this makes me wonder if indeed there isn't enough bugs reported in the 1300+ issues so poking around with API changes in code that is being around for a long time and being used downstream but cause no reported problems with is what should take priority just to tick off ruff boxes again? Especially when we talk about paid priorities that don't cause havoc for other maintainers?

nstarman · 2024-09-24T03:52:30Z

I think this PR is being taken a bit out of context. @neutrinoceros has done a good job making sure that this PR does not break any API (e.g. #17002 (comment)). This PR expands the input options to many functions that deal with paths, allowing them to take the recommended pathlib.Path objects in addition to strings.
I agree that it is entirely reasonable to bump this to 7.1.

neutrinoceros · 2024-09-24T07:56:30Z

For what it's worth I just ran pyvo's test suite against this branch and found 0 error (or warning). I have intentionally not removed any API here or introduced any deprecation yet, so it would be easy to have this in 7.0 and possibly delay any deprecation to 7.1. I would also be happy to help with said deprecations in downstream code when/if we go this route, but in the meantime I'm not sure I understand why the present PR shouldn't land in 7.0

pllim · 2024-09-24T15:22:57Z

Let's punt this to v7.1 then. That way, the validator stuff can stay because I would have time (theoretically) to check it later. I will turn this back into draft for now. Thank you all for your patience and understanding!

github-actions · 2025-02-19T05:41:00Z

Hi humans 👋 - this pull request hasn't had any new commits for approximately 4 months. I plan to close this in 30 days if the pull request doesn't have any new commits by then.

In lieu of a stalled pull request, please consider closing this and open an issue instead if a reminder is needed to revisit in the future. Maintainers may also choose to add keep-open label to keep this PR open but it is discouraged unless absolutely necessary.

If this PR still needs to be reviewed, as an author, you can rebase it to reset the clock.

If you believe I commented on this pull request incorrectly, please report this here.

github-actions · 2025-03-22T05:41:00Z

I'm going to close this pull request as per my previous message. If you think what is being added/fixed here is still important, please remember to open an issue to keep track of it. Thanks!

If this is the first time I am commenting on this issue, or if you believe I closed this issue incorrectly, please report this here.

github-actions bot added testing io.votable unified-io dev-automation labels Sep 12, 2024

neutrinoceros mentioned this pull request Sep 12, 2024

MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib #16924

Closed

neutrinoceros force-pushed the io.votable/rfc/pth_checks branch 2 times, most recently from 810cf4d to 37eafa4 Compare September 12, 2024 09:07

neutrinoceros marked this pull request as ready for review September 12, 2024 14:13

neutrinoceros requested review from WilliamJamieson and nstarman as code owners September 12, 2024 14:13

pllim reviewed Sep 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

pllim added this to the v7.0.0 milestone Sep 12, 2024

pllim added Extra CI Run cron CI as part of PR Build all wheels Run all the wheel builds rather than just a selection labels Sep 12, 2024

nstarman reviewed Sep 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

neutrinoceros marked this pull request as draft September 13, 2024 05:57

neutrinoceros force-pushed the io.votable/rfc/pth_checks branch from 37eafa4 to 76355c0 Compare September 13, 2024 06:16

neutrinoceros marked this pull request as ready for review September 13, 2024 07:34

neutrinoceros commented Sep 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

astropy/io/votable/validator/html.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

astropy/io/votable/validator/result.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

neutrinoceros force-pushed the io.votable/rfc/pth_checks branch from f621046 to 035da28 Compare September 13, 2024 16:03

MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (io.votable)

7168994

neutrinoceros force-pushed the io.votable/rfc/pth_checks branch from 035da28 to 7168994 Compare September 21, 2024 07:25

pllim reviewed Sep 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

bsipocz requested changes Sep 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

pllim marked this pull request as draft September 24, 2024 15:23

pllim modified the milestones: v7.0.0, v7.1.0 Sep 24, 2024

github-actions bot added the Close? Tell stale bot that this issue/PR is stale label Feb 19, 2025

github-actions bot added the closed-by-bot Closed by stale bot label Mar 22, 2025

github-actions bot closed this Mar 22, 2025

neutrinoceros deleted the io.votable/rfc/pth_checks branch March 22, 2025 15:05

Uh oh!

Conversation

neutrinoceros commented Sep 12, 2024

Description

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Sep 12, 2024

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Sep 12, 2024

Uh oh!

pllim Sep 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pllim Sep 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nstarman Sep 13, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

neutrinoceros Sep 13, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

neutrinoceros Sep 13, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nstarman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nstarman Sep 13, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pllim commented Sep 20, 2024

Uh oh!

neutrinoceros commented Sep 21, 2024

Uh oh!

pllim Sep 23, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bsipocz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pllim commented Sep 23, 2024

Uh oh!

bsipocz commented Sep 23, 2024

Uh oh!

nstarman commented Sep 24, 2024

Uh oh!

neutrinoceros commented Sep 24, 2024

Uh oh!

pllim commented Sep 24, 2024

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 19, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 22, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

neutrinoceros Sep 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading