Skip to content

More deprecation updates for version 0.103.0 #4033

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

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Jul 17, 2025

Conversation

zm711
Copy link
Member

@zm711 zm711 commented Jul 5, 2025

  1. Add deprecations of version 0.104.0 for functions that had no version number
  2. removed deprecation version from MockWaveformExtractor and indicated it could happen in the future
  3. Added a couple question for a few deps I wasn't sure about
  4. Found two more deprecations (one from version 0.101.0 and one from 0.102.0) that I removed
  5. @h-mayorquin for return_scaled we discussed a longer deprecation than 2 versions but right now it just says "future" just wanted this on our radar and explain why I didn't touch those. Maybe we want to discuss at some point what a long deprecation means for us? Or leave it as future like for WaveformExtractor

I didn't double check testing so I assume this will break tests. Will fix tomorrow as I need to run.

@zm711 zm711 added the deprecations Related to code deprecation label Jul 5, 2025
@zm711 zm711 mentioned this pull request Jul 7, 2025
@h-mayorquin
Copy link
Collaborator

@h-mayorquin for return_scaled we discussed a longer deprecation than 2 versions but right now it just says "future" just wanted this on our radar and explain why I didn't touch those. Maybe we want to discuss at some point what a long deprecation means for us? Or leave it as future like for WaveformExtractor

The discussion on the meeting was "Never" but I think to be precise you could say in the next major version release.

@zm711
Copy link
Member Author

zm711 commented Jul 7, 2025

The discussion on the meeting was "Never" but I think to be precise you could say in the next major version release.

That works for me. Just wanted to confirm.

@zm711 zm711 marked this pull request as ready for review July 7, 2025 17:03
@alejoe91 alejoe91 added this to the 0.103.0 milestone Jul 14, 2025
Copy link
Member Author

@zm711 zm711 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@alejoe91

my review for this one never posted! Could you look at these two things to finalize this PR

@@ -374,6 +374,7 @@ def plot_agreement_matrix(study, ordered=True, case_keys=None, axs=None):
return fig


# what's the dperecation strategy for this function in general?
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@samuelgarcia / @alejoe91 this is for you both!

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

the benchmark module is new and in dev, so I think we can just remove the function in the next release

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yes we can remove this

@@ -190,6 +190,7 @@ def get_agreement_sorting(self, minimum_agreement_count=1, minimum_agreement_cou
)
return sorting

# strategy for this dep?
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

same here and just below. What is the strategy?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this warning has been there for a long time :)

IMO we can remove the functions in 0.103.0 directly.. @samuelgarcia what do you think?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ok

@@ -16,10 +16,14 @@ def run_peak_pipeline(
folder=None,
names=None,
):
# TODO remove this soon
# TODO remove this soon. Will be removed in 0.104.0
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we can remove this now. Nody never used it.

@samuelgarcia
Copy link
Member

I am OK with evrything + one that can be removed now

@alejoe91 alejoe91 self-assigned this Jul 17, 2025
@alejoe91
Copy link
Member

Thanks @zm711!

Let's merge :)

@alejoe91 alejoe91 merged commit d34fdce into SpikeInterface:main Jul 17, 2025
15 checks passed
@zm711 zm711 deleted the update-deps branch July 17, 2025 14:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
deprecations Related to code deprecation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants