-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18.4k
CI: Remove redundant sdist workflow #52794
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
Conversation
I think the reason that I didn't remove this yet was because we don't have a way of testing that the oldest supported numpy works (on all Python versions). Not sure if this testing is too relevant now though. Agreed this would be nice to remove though. |
It seems the workflow never really tested pandas with the lowest oldest supported, just that But as long as we have |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems reasonable.
Not sure the context when the job was created, but testing that pandas can be imported when installed with an sdist with an old numpy installed seems redundant and somehow cumbersome, given that we run all the test suite with the old numpy and we test the sdist.
Somehow unrelated. Would it make sense to run the tests on the same jobs we build the wheels? From the release point of view, feels like it'd make sense to test on the CI what's really being released.
Also, how do you feel about copying the recipe from feedstock to this repo, and having a CI job to build the conda package? That would be nice to avoid having to update the recipe during the release process.
I would be +1 to this. It would be great to the have the CI more representative of testing pandas from what users install. We should probably still have a job that tests that pandas can be installed from source and pass the test suite.
I guess I wouldn't be opposed to this, but IIRC the conda forge build is still triggered from the Github release being created? |
Owee, I'm MrMeeseeks, Look at me. There seem to be a conflict, please backport manually. Here are approximate instructions:
And apply the correct labels and milestones. Congratulations — you did some good work! Hopefully your backport PR will be tested by the continuous integration and merged soon! Remember to remove the If these instructions are inaccurate, feel free to suggest an improvement. |
That was broken for few releases, but for the last one the PR was automatically created. But even if the conda-forge bot creates the PR, the CI for the will fail if changes are needed to the recipe. The idea is that if for example you're adding a new required dependency, the conda-forge recipe needs to be updated. Now, we discover this in the middle of the release. Having a CI build in the pandas repo itself that builds the conda package would make the CI fail in the PR where the dependency is added, and the copy of the recipe in the pandas repo will have to be updated. This way, in the release we already have the working recipe that we just need to copy. |
* CI: Remove redundant sdist workflow * CI: Remove redundant sdist workflow
* CI: Remove redundant sdist workflow * CI: Remove redundant sdist workflow
* CI: Remove redundant sdist workflow * CI: Remove redundant sdist workflow
AFAICT: The sdist workflow was essentially similar as the
build_sdist
job in the wheels workflow except it didn't test the sdist cc @lithomas1