Closed altheaden closed 1 month ago
@forsyth2, could you allow CI to run on this PR and #621? What kind of testing would you like to see for these 2 PRs? We're mostly just trying to apply the same clean up here (and on zstash) that we're applying to other E3SM-related python packages.
@altheaden My original plan was to run the integration tests on this PR after fixing #625 (which #628 I merged this morning does). But it now occurs to me that wouldn't actually show anything new since my dev environment uses Python 9 anyway:
$ python --version
Python 3.9.13
However, I notice the unit test step (CI/CD Build Workflow > Details > Run Unit Tests) shows only 2 unit tests rather than the new number of 22 (post-merging of #628). I thought the CI/CD rebased on the latest main
but clearly it does not. In that case, I would say if you can rebase this PR on the latest main
and make sure the 22 unit tests pass, this should be good to merge.
I think the same would go for #621 and #627. I do notice #627 has some merge conflicts. (Sorry, I did some pretty extensive refactoring in #628 to make zppy
's code easier to understand and to test.)
@forsyth2 Just did a rebase onto the latest main, can you re-run CI when you get a chance?
Oh I just noticed that zppy/setup.py still has
python_requires=">=3.6",
Should that be changed too, as in https://github.com/E3SM-Project/zstash/pull/351?
@forsyth2 I must have missed that here, I'm sorry - let me create another PR to fix that. Thanks for catching that.
No worries, thanks @altheaden!
Support for Python 3.8 (and lower) has been dropped from
conda-forge
, so I've updated the lower bounds of supported versions here accordingly.Updated template from @forsyth2
Issue resolution
This pull request is a minor adjustment that would increment the patch version.
1. Does this do what we want it to do?
Objectives:
zppy
.Required:
2. Are the implementation details accurate & efficient?
Required:
3. Is this well documented?
Required:
4. Is this code clean?
Required: