codecov[bot]
commented
4 months ago Codecov Report
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 94.70%. Comparing base (
ecb01b3) to head (0b2e975).
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #2395 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 94.70% 94.70% ======================================= Files 249 249 Lines 14114 14118 +4 ======================================= + Hits 13367 13371 +4 Misses 747 747 ```:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
valeriupredoi
bouweandela
Description
This PR introduces the changes we need to support Numpy 2.0 (these changes were collected from running the tests, so they may not be 100% exhaustive, but given that we have 95% test coverage, I'd say they are 95% exhaustive; we can deal with missed cases as they come along, if any; I would not use the ruff plugin test Numpy recommends to migrate, since that will introduce a lot of style changes that we may want to make when we include ruff as our linter). Most changes are in our testing suite, but there are a couple in the source code; these are backwards compatible changes, ie all tests pass when running with numpy=1.26.4
The only test that fails (both for Numpy2 and numpy legacy) is related to the pins on pandas, that need to go since we need to use the latest pandas for environment compatibility, see https://github.com/ESMValGroup/ESMValCore/issues/2459 ; I'll try fix that issue here, since it's related to (but not a direct consequence of) Numpy2.
Closes #2460 Closes https://github.com/ESMValGroup/ESMValCore/issues/2459
The second issue closue is more of a brush it under the carpet via a pytest xfail, the original issue that kept creeping up is https://github.com/ESMValGroup/ESMValCore/pull/2305 and the actual issue is with Pandas, and listed in https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/issues/57002 - we can wait on its fix (and have us test quietness via the test
xfail) or @schlunma can propose a more elegant solution in a separate PR?Historical guff
OK @ESMValGroup/technical-lead-development-team we finally have a correct set of tests with the latest Numpy=2.0.0 (stable) - don't mind the ones related to
pandas, I had to unpin it to gte pandas=2.2.2 built with Numpy 2.0 (otherwise the environment wouldn't solve) -> we have some work to do :+1: https://github.com/ESMValGroup/ESMValCore/actions/runs/9582595825/job/26421917358?pr=2395~Numpy 2.0 is impending~: it is now fully out (see https://anaconda.org/conda-forge/numpy ); resources https://anaconda.org/conda-forge/numpy/files and https://github.com/numpy/numpy/releases - they recommend a test with the RC and list the changes roadmap in https://numpy.org/devdocs/numpy_2_0_migration_guide.html so we can test ourselves. Note: this branch should not be merged! If everything works out fine, we'll just pick up numpy 2.0 as per normal. ATTN: @ESMValGroup/technical-lead-development-team
conda-forge/label/numpy_devpython-stratify,shapely, andpandas, since most prob they are pinning the upper bound of numpy to <2.0, see GA testscftime, as @bouweandela points out in comments, see https://github.com/Unidata/cftime/issues/318 (and linked PR), others are due to actual package compilation against a Numpy=1.x that barfs when it sees 2.x (those should be solved at recompile/redeploy time), and others are due to netCDF4 complaining about dtypes - that needs a closer look