BAMWelDX / weldx

The welding data exchange format
https://www.bam.de/weldx
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
19 stars 9 forks source link

v0.6.5 #865

Closed CagtayFabry closed 1 year ago

CagtayFabry commented 1 year ago

Unfortunately the initial changes slipped past on master here 700850d21970dadb7dfbd893eecf58c91ab86434

Changes

create release PR

Merge the Pull Request

add Git(hub) tag

ReadTheDocs updates

pypi release

conda-forge release

github-actions[bot] commented 1 year ago

Test Results

       1 files  ±  0         1 suites  ±0   1m 22s :stopwatch: - 1m 12s 2 134 tests  - 55  2 048 :heavy_check_mark:  - 140  1 :zzz: ±0  79 :x: +79  6 :fire: +6  2 137 runs   - 52  2 048 :heavy_check_mark:  - 140  1 :zzz: ±0  79 :x: +79  9 :fire: +9 

For more details on these failures and errors, see this check.

Results for commit ad97c80d. ± Comparison against base commit 700850d2.

This pull request removes 56 and adds 1 tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both. ``` weldx.tests.test_geometry ‑ test_arc_segment_constructor weldx.tests.test_geometry ‑ test_arc_segment_factories weldx.tests.test_geometry ‑ test_arc_segment_interpolation weldx.tests.test_geometry ‑ test_arc_segment_rasterization weldx.tests.test_geometry ‑ test_arc_segment_transformations weldx.tests.test_geometry ‑ test_geometry_construction weldx.tests.test_geometry ‑ test_geometry_rasterization_profile_interpolation weldx.tests.test_geometry ‑ test_geometry_rasterization_trace weldx.tests.test_geometry ‑ test_line_segment_construction weldx.tests.test_geometry ‑ test_line_segment_interpolation … ``` ``` weldx.tests.test_geometry ```

:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.

CagtayFabry commented 1 year ago

Python 3.9 seems to run into an issue with the fs package in our test suite https://github.com/BAMWelDX/weldx/actions/runs/4626993379/jobs/8184371412

I could reproduce the error locally but I am nut sure what caused it, Python 3.10 seems to work again for some reason

codecov[bot] commented 1 year ago

Codecov Report

Merging #865 (42806c8) into master (e68bb6d) will increase coverage by 0.02%. The diff coverage is 100.00%.

:exclamation: Current head 42806c8 differs from pull request most recent head ad97c80. Consider uploading reports for the commit ad97c80 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #865      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.48%   96.51%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          94       94              
  Lines        6230     6283      +53     
==========================================
+ Hits         6011     6064      +53     
  Misses        219      219              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
weldx/asdf/file.py 96.32% <100.00%> (+0.04%) :arrow_up:
weldx/asdf/util.py 90.88% <100.00%> (ø)
weldx/asdf/validators.py 98.24% <100.00%> (ø)
weldx/config.py 90.66% <100.00%> (ø)
weldx/core/generic_series.py 89.73% <100.00%> (+0.43%) :arrow_up:
weldx/core/math_expression.py 98.59% <100.00%> (ø)
weldx/core/time_series.py 97.72% <100.00%> (ø)
weldx/geometry.py 96.62% <100.00%> (+0.01%) :arrow_up:
weldx/tags/core/common_types.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
weldx/time.py 97.88% <100.00%> (+0.04%) :arrow_up:
... and 4 more

... and 7 files with indirect coverage changes

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

marscher commented 1 year ago

I've seen this error before. It looks like the given path for the Quality standard is None. So it is not an issue with Python 3.9, but our code.

CagtayFabry commented 1 year ago

I've seen this error before. It looks like the given path for the Quality standard is None. So it is not an issue with Python 3.9, but our code.

yes but it only appears with 3.9 (at least for me) Anyway, fs seems rather unmaintained and is running into quite a few deprecation warnings, maybe we should try to find an alternative way (using asdf tools)

marscher commented 1 year ago

the fewer dependencies the fewer points of failure. If asdf.tools provides a an alternative why not use it.