Repository navigation
MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib #16924
Description
This was originally a pull request that never got merged:
Subsequently, it was revived and split into smaller pieces:
- MNT: ignore PTH linting ruleset by subpackage instead of globally #16917
- MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (convolution) #16918
- MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (stats) #16919
- MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (time) #16923
- MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (cosmology) #16925
- MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (astropy.logger) #16926
- MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (modeling) (⏰ wait for #16928) #16927
- MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (utils 1/n) (⏰ wait for #16930) #16928
- MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (coordinates) #16932
- MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (timeseries) #16933
- MNT: unignore PTH checks in astropy.units (noop) #16934
- MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (visualization) #16935
- MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (wcs) #16936
Related PRs not covered in original #16060 as follow:
- ENH: improve support for
Pathobjects inio.ascii.core.BaseInputter.get_lines#16930 - ENH/BUG: improve support for
pathlib.Pathinputs iniers#16931 - MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (samp) #16937
- MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (table) #16939 + BLD: fix building against setuptools 68 #16942
- MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (modeling) #16940
- MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (io.ascii) #16954
- MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (io.misc) #16955
- MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (io.registry) #16956
- MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (config) #16997
- MNT: Run PTH flake test in prep for supporting pathlib (io.votable) #17002
When the PRs above are resolved, we can close this issue and revisit:
Reacted by Clément Robert
Reacted by Nick Murphy
Activity
neutrinoceros commentedon Sep 3, 2024
Thank you !
Tonight's batch is
I'll add more tomorrow
neutrinoceros commentedon Sep 3, 2024
also
neutrinoceros commentedon Sep 4, 2024
Today's batch:
I'll check again when they're all merged, but I think I'm done re-issuing #16060. However there is still work to be done in other sub-packages that were not touched in the original PR, so please keep this issue open for the time being.
neutrinoceros commentedon Sep 4, 2024
Some brand new ones, not from #16060
pllim commentedon Sep 4, 2024
Thanks! I updated the post listing above. Please let me know if I missed anything.
neutrinoceros commentedon Sep 6, 2024
this morning's batch:
I think we're getting there 🤞🏻 (but there's still more to come)
neutrinoceros commentedon Sep 11, 2024
A new one
neutrinoceros commentedon Sep 12, 2024
Today's PR:
pllim commentedon Nov 17, 2025
@neutrinoceros is this issue resolved?
neutrinoceros commentedon Nov 17, 2025
To the extent the end goal wasn't clearly defined, yes. We're not actively working towards this, at least. I think it's safe to close now, if that's what you're asking :)