iris

iris copied to clipboard

~WIP~ This is now ready for review

This switches our use of nox to tox, re #4806

Mar 01 '23 19:03 lbdreyer

So this should be all good to go, but there are now three test failures:

FAILED lib/iris/tests/unit/analysis/stats/test_pearsonr.py::Test::test_perfect_corr
FAILED lib/iris/tests/integration/plot/test_vector_plots.py::TestBarbs::test_2d_plain_latlon
FAILED lib/iris/tests/integration/plot/test_vector_plots.py::TestBarbs::test_2d_plain_latlon_on_polar_map
==== 3 failed, 6767 passed, 36 skipped, 15220 warnings in 178.70s (0:02:58) ====

Which is interesting since I've not touched any test files. Maybe something to do with the environment creation!

Mar 31 '23 16:03 lbdreyer

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 89.37%. Comparing base (5b42f47) to head (fba88d7). Report is 349 commits behind head on main.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5184   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   89.37%   89.37%           
=======================================
  Files          89       89           
  Lines       22426    22426           
  Branches     5379     5379           
=======================================
  Hits        20043    20043           
  Misses       1637     1637           
  Partials      746      746           

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Jul 19 '23 14:07 codecov[bot]

This is getting closer. I just have to make change to the benchmarks and test them locally.

Jul 19 '23 15:07 lbdreyer

Benchmarks ran, so this should now be ready!

Jul 21 '23 13:07 lbdreyer

Since everything is in a single commit I think I'll need to go back through all the changes - I can't remember which bits I did and didn't review back in March.

So this will need to wait until after the sprint.

Jul 21 '23 14:07 trexfeathers

Thanks! no rush at all!

Jul 21 '23 14:07 lbdreyer

Looks like this didn't get recorded, but discussions between @SciTools/peloton in December concluded that we should investigate how easy it would be to maintain our own tox-conda plugin, with just the features that we need. @pp-mo expressed an interest in this, I don't know how it has progressed.

We accepted that this is less good than maintaining the real, public plugin. But we also agreed that it could be the pragmatic approach since a private plugin would take less maintenance and make us less vulnerable to outside forces.

@HGWright highlighted that if we got a proof-of-concept together then we could potentially start a conversation on the tox-conda repo to see how many others are maintaining their own plugin and discuss pooling resources.

This matters for this PR, as I am increasingly reluctant to approve tox-conda becoming a dependency.

Jan 25 '24 11:01 trexfeathers

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

Apr 08 '24 16:04 CLAassistant