Skip to content

TST: add systematic backward compatibility checks against oldest supported versions of direct dependencies#15054

Merged
Carreau merged 3 commits intoipython:mainfrom
neutrinoceros:tst/oldest-deps
Nov 4, 2025
Merged

TST: add systematic backward compatibility checks against oldest supported versions of direct dependencies#15054
Carreau merged 3 commits intoipython:mainfrom
neutrinoceros:tst/oldest-deps

Conversation

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros commented Oct 31, 2025

Follow up to #15041

Since this setup requires uv (pip install doesn't support the --resolution argument, crucial to this work), I've written it as a completely separate job instead of a matrix item. It would be possible to reconcile the two, but that would make for a much more invasive change where I'd replace pip with uv everywhere. Of course, if that's desired, I'm also happy to go all-in with uv, either here, or as a follow up PR.

@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros force-pushed the tst/oldest-deps branch 3 times, most recently from bf7b348 to 1b496d3 Compare October 31, 2025 11:03
@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I got the number of failed tests from 2 to 1 by bumping the minimum requirement on jedi, but I don't get what's happening with the remaining failure yet, so I don't have a good idea of which other direct dependency needs bumping to resolve it. Of course I could just try them all but that'd be wasteful, so in case it might be obvious to others, I'm open to suggestions !

@Carreau
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Carreau commented Oct 31, 2025

@krassowski ?

@Carreau Carreau requested review from Copilot and krassowski October 31, 2025 11:46

This comment was marked as outdated.

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@Carreau just curious, did you actually request a review from Copilot, or is GH's UI just pretending you did ? (I heard such reviews could appear un-prompted)

@Carreau
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Carreau commented Nov 3, 2025

I tried clicking on it to see if it could find or suggest the root cause of the test failure, but it just summarized the PR...

So yes the noise was due to me, sorry about that.

@krassowski
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@krassowski ?

Did you ping me for the completion XFAILs? These are expected. I see a real issue with tests.test_iplib.doctest_tb_sysexit_verbose_stack_data_05 not sure about it.

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

It was about that test yes. Do you have any idea what direct dependency would be affect the outcome ?

@krassowski
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Well, the failure looks like could be due to formatting of cPython copyright message so maybe python-version: 3.11? I don't know what that test is meant to check but it looks like it could be more selective? Also, 3.11 support window ended as per https://scientific-python.org/specs/spec-0000/ should this PR use 3.12?

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

This is supposed to check the viability of an environment barely matching minimal requirements as declared in pyproject.toml
Dropping support for Python 3.11 is not in scope with what I'm trying to achieve here.

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

The fact that the job is currently failing necessarily indicates that at least one minimal requirement needs to be updated. I just don't know where to look first.

@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros force-pushed the tst/oldest-deps branch 4 times, most recently from 95023ae to a83d503 Compare November 3, 2025 16:07
@krassowski
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Well, I would bump python-version first :P

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

After a couple iterations, I found, empirically, that bumping stack-data resolved the failure. Unless something else breaks, I expect this should be ready for review now.

@neutrinoceros
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

FTR; bumping Python to 3.12 wouldn't have solved this failure.

@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros marked this pull request as ready for review November 3, 2025 16:15
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.

4 participants