Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #496 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 83.90% 83.90%
========================================
Files 25 25
Lines 8184 8185 +1
Branches 1709 1709
========================================
+ Hits 6867 6868 +1
Misses 1317 1317
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
fce08b2 to
cb27fc0
Compare
LecrisUT
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we include any tests for both numpy 1.x and 2.x for runtime, or is it not worth the complexity?
It's generally nice to test with the lowest and highest supported version of a dependency, especially when binary compatibility and bc-breaking changes are involved. So it sounds useful to me - however I don't know much about |
Signed-off-by: Cristian Le <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Cristian Le <[email protected]>
89bb70a to
fd8d8f3
Compare
Signed-off-by: Cristian Le <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Cristian Le <[email protected]>
Use cmake() provides to make it more portable Signed-off-by: Cristian Le <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Cristian Le <[email protected]>
|
Ok, all 👍 from my side on this issue. Fedora packaging seems to go ok, although rawhide is not on numpy 2.0 yet, and the new test where we downgrade the build numpy to 1.x seems to work fine. @rgommers just one final confirmation, building with Other than that @lan496 I leave it to you to make a final review and merge |
Yes, that definitely will not work. |
lan496
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note: This PR also bumps up the required python version to 3.9
Closes #407