Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1786 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 91.51% 91.51%
=======================================
Files 202 202
Lines 10908 10908
=======================================
Hits 9982 9982
Misses 926 926 Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
|
blast! we need extensions in the main conda env - let me do that |
|
Yeah, we should really think about merging #1542 soon |
actually, I dunnit here 😁 |
|
Is this really ready for review @valeriupredoi? It looks like something you're still working on. Could you please put it in draft until you're happy with the results? |
|
@bouweandela this is ready for review - the reason all tests are failing is due to the new mypy and our fixing with either pinning mypy or your work in #1769 should go first in main, then we merge main here so to see everything 🟢 |
bouweandela
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for taking this on @valeriupredoi! Would you mind using the pull request checklist to make the review a bit easier?
|
how to get depressed on a Monday: look at this PR: Python 3.8 test fails with types crappe (again), Python 3.9 fails coz it cant find sample data, docs fail coz some deprecation warning - might as well go home now 🤣 |
|
@bouweandela have a look at this - there are issues with pyesgf from conda-forge, it seems the two versions - c-f and pypi differ, with the c-f one throwing wobblies |
I replicated test fails locally, it is not a matter of peculiar env from the GA test, but an actual problem with the conda-forge esgf-pyclient package, as opposed to the PyPI one that works very well. I will move esgf-pyclient to be downloaded only from PyPI for now, and will open an issue upstream at esgf-pyclient conda feedstock |
|
Here is the issue conda-forge/esgf-pyclient-feedstock#18 |
|
@bouweandela I need to revert to |
|
wohoo! Finally, all tests are 🟢 |
|
So I opened this conda-forge/esgf-pyclient-feedstock#19 to fix conda-forge/esgf-pyclient for older Pythons - not sure how long that PR will have to wait for approval, I say we merge this now, then we (I) will do a PR to re-add esgf-pyclient to our conda-forge deps and re-add the |
|
Apparently, I have permission to merge that, so this doesn't need to take long. Could you have a look at my comment on the pull request? |
|
yes you have, you bossman there too 😁 I did, and I operated the change, thanks, bud 🍺 Let's wait til that sees open ocean, then I can bring this up to standards |
|
Just merged it |
|
thanks a lot, bud! But am off to shove a 🍕 in the oven now, will fix this here tomorrow 👍 |
environment.yml
Outdated
| - iris>=3.2.1 | ||
| - isodate | ||
| - jinja2 | ||
| - mypy>=0.990 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you move mypy to the test dependencies, please?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
on it now, will also re add esgf-pyclient to the env file, and reinstate nodeps, fingers crossed this is done after, been geeting quite a few more white hairs on it 😁
|
@bouweandela it's alive! It works well and tests are 🟢 |
|
Awesome, thanks 🍻 |
|
great! Many thanks to monsieur reviewer @bouweandela and monsieur le merger @schlunma - we are now all conda forged 💯 |
sister PR to ESMValGroup/ESMValTool#2913
Motivation
Readthedocs builds use
pip install --upgrade --upgrade-strategy eagerto install and eventually reinstall everything from the env via pip - this is discussed in readthedocs/readthedocs.org#8890 and is not something good for many reasons, one of them, and a very recent and pertinent one is that the build will chuck a wobbly if the package versions differ from conda-forge to pypi.Method
Use jobs with key names, here post env creation job
Docs output
https://esmvaltool--1786.org.readthedocs.build/projects/ESMValCore/en/1786/
Bears at a dinner party
I had to add all deps from setup.py to the conda-forge env file eventually dumping the good bits of #1542 into here so eventually closes #1541
Checklist
It is the responsibility of the author to make sure the pull request is ready to review. The icons indicate whether the item will be subject to the 🛠 Technical or 🧪 Scientific review.