Codecov Report

Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change: +0.02 🎉

Comparison is base (5543c71) 94.80% compared to head (86df3af) 94.83%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1411      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   94.80%   94.83%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          45       45              
  Lines        6889     6889              
==========================================
+ Hits         6531     6533       +2     
+ Misses        358      356       -2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

This looks good to me, I wonder who we should ping for a review.
It seems like the ci failures are unrelated to this PR.

Maybe a gentle ping to @GaelVaroquaux or @tomMoral

Okay, so the linting error is (clearly) related to the changes here. The linux_pypy3 build isn't failing in #1412, but also seems unrelated (at least to me naively). Maybe it's a transient error? @scharlottej13 would you mind merging the main branch and resolving that linting issue? That will trigger another CI build and we can see if the linux_pypy3 failure persists

Thanks @jrbourbeau and @ncclementi!

Okay, so the linting error is (clearly) related to the changes here.

Yes, it seems to be happening here due to a long link (line 10). Unfortunately I'm not quite sure what the best fix is. I tried separating the link from the target, but the link didn't render correctly in the RTD build. I also tried ignoring the line with # noqua: E501, however, then that comment shows up in the documentation too.

The linux_pypy3 build isn't failing in #1412, but also seems unrelated (at least to me naively). Maybe it's a transient error? @scharlottej13 would you mind merging the main branch and resolving that linting issue? That will trigger another CI build and we can see if the linux_pypy3 failure persists

This test seems to be passing now! My branch (and fork) were both already up to date with main.

Just curious, were they something in particular that prompted your PR, e.g. something that you thought was not up-to-date or missing?

Thanks for having a look @lesteve! Yes, the Deploy Dask Clusters was recently updated in the Dask docs (see dask/dask#9912, should have mentioned that in my initial comment).

Also, it would be nice to try to make the linter happy, I'll try to take a look (probably next week).

Appreciate your help with this.

Thanks @lesteve and @tomMoral for the review! I believe I've responded to your comments. Feel free to let me know if there's anything else.

thanks @scharlottej13 for the PR :)

Of course, thanks @tomMoral!