-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
Dependency and workflow adjustments - Testing #880
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: updates-2025
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## updates-2025 #880 +/- ##
===============================================
Coverage ? 91.55%
===============================================
Files ? 59
Lines ? 6261
Branches ? 0
===============================================
Hits ? 5732
Misses ? 529
Partials ? 0 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
@aaronspring No tests failing with |
|
No tests failing with |
|
Comparing the builds, I can see that the regression shows up sometime between I'm not sure how to chase it down further than that. I do recall the jump to Hopefully this helps with the debugging efforts. |
|
Hey @aaronspring, happy new year! I just wanted to point out that this PR is the one we should play around with in order to get to this bottom of these failing tests. I think we're close, and if we can resolve this, most of the open Pull Requests can finally be merged, domino-style. |
|
agreed. I lost track and wanted to start fresh to see whether an error crept in early therefore starting #882. I'm still unsure about a testing and verifying strategy. maybe we can draft such a plan here and only afterwards execute the plan? |
|
For sure, I offered this PR since most of the work to bring the code up-to-date is already done in #870. I'm somewhat convinced that the relatively recent changes from |
|
py3.9 passing was puzzling to me but now I understand Analysis SummaryRoot Cause: The failures are NOT due to Python version differences. The real issue is NumPy 2.x compatibility in xskillscore v0.0.27. Why py3.9 passes but py3.10-3.13 fail:
Fix Plan
Should you drop py3.9?
https://opncd.ai/share/YRNcwidm why didn't we publish xskillscore 0.0.28? @Zeitsperre |
Maybe we need to go test by test. Which test in particular do you think is impacted by xr attrs? |
I just need your rubber stamp on xarray-contrib/xskillscore#441 to release v0.0.28. I honestly forgot to check in on it.
Can start taking a look next week. Would love to get to the bottom of this. Perhaps I can tag in a colleague to help. |
|
Count me in also. Can devote some time to debug, triage and decide |
|
@aaronspring xskillscore v0.0.28 is out on PyPI. It just needs a release on Update: I pushed a few changes/workarounds to deal with the attributes' behaviour in #883, as well as updated the doctest outputs. I needed to pin |
Description
This is a testing PR to figure out what dependency combination may be causing the testing failures. Be sure to squash and merge commits when a solution is found.
To-Do List
climpredorxskillscorexskillscore@mainType of change
How Has This Been Tested?
TBD
References
See #870