We can currently observe an incompatibility of dask with python 3.11.9 e.g. in the message-ix-models CI. This is fixed in version 2024.4.1 of dask, but our CI runs pip install .[docs,tests] "dask < 2024.3.0" "genno < 1.25" "pandas < 2.0" "pytest == 8.0.0" for message-ix-models with message_ix 3.6.0 and below.
We expect that removing the pin for the dask version entails solving a dependency mess since we would need to adhere to requiring dask-expr. So for now, we opt to XFail the test depending on dask instead.
How to review
@khaeru, should I mention this PR in a comment in-line? I'm not sure what else to reference there.
Read the diff and note that the CI checks all pass.
PR checklist
[x] Continuous integration checks all ✅
[x] Update tests; coverage checks both ✅
~[ ] Add, expand, or update documentation.~ Just test suite changes.
~[ ] Update doc/whatsnew.~ Just test suite changes.
We can currently observe an incompatibility of dask with python 3.11.9 e.g. in the message-ix-models CI. This is fixed in version 2024.4.1 of dask, but our CI runs
pip install .[docs,tests] "dask < 2024.3.0" "genno < 1.25" "pandas < 2.0" "pytest == 8.0.0"
for message-ix-models with message_ix 3.6.0 and below. We expect that removing the pin for the dask version entails solving a dependency mess since we would need to adhere to requiring dask-expr. So for now, we opt to XFail the test depending on dask instead.How to review
@khaeru, should I mention this PR in a comment in-line? I'm not sure what else to reference there.
PR checklist