Skip to content
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

OAK dependency tuning #686

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 5, 2023
Merged

OAK dependency tuning #686

merged 2 commits into from
Dec 5, 2023

Conversation

hrshdhgd
Copy link
Collaborator

@hrshdhgd hrshdhgd commented Dec 5, 2023

@hrshdhgd hrshdhgd marked this pull request as ready for review December 5, 2023 18:04
@hrshdhgd hrshdhgd requested a review from cmungall December 5, 2023 18:04
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Dec 5, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (be57506) 76.48% compared to head (2aff610) 76.48%.

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #686   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   76.48%   76.48%           
=======================================
  Files         252      252           
  Lines       29386    29386           
=======================================
+ Hits        22475    22477    +2     
+ Misses       6911     6909    -2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

pyproject.toml Outdated
@@ -37,7 +35,7 @@ pysolr = "^3.9.0"
eutils = ">=0.6.0"
requests-cache = "^1.0.1"
click = "*"
semsimian = "0.2.1"
semsimian = ">=0.2.1"
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In general I favor less pinning but given how tightly coupled these are, I think limiting to 0.2.* may be sensible? See also Mark's Q in #oak

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ok, switched to ^0.2.1. As per Mark's Q, I did read it and it was confusing with the versions he mentioned.

@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ deps =
coverage
semsimian
gilda
linkml
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

a bit worried about duplication of dependency metadata but I don't quite understand why these are in tox.ini in the first place

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is because if we run tox -e py (to run pytest via tox), it throws errors about linkml module not found (in tot's virtual environment). It doesn't affect poetry and it's working in general. We could do away with tox and be solely poetry dependent but we've had those conversations in the past.

@cmungall cmungall merged commit 9862ec0 into main Dec 5, 2023
5 checks passed
@cmungall cmungall deleted the sssom-0.3x branch December 5, 2023 21:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants