Update Notebook, JupyterLab, Jupyter Resource Usage

jupyterhub / the-littlest-jupyterhub

Simple JupyterHub distribution for 1-100 users on a single server

https://tljh.jupyter.org

BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License

1.05k stars 342 forks source link

Update Notebook, JupyterLab, Jupyter Resource Usage #928

Closed jtpio closed 1 year ago

jtpio commented 1 year ago

Update Jupyter Notebook, JupyterLab and Jupyter Resource Usage to the latest major releases:

[x] notebook: https://jupyter-notebook.readthedocs.io/en/stable/changelog.html
[x] jupyterlab: https://jupyterlab.readthedocs.io/en/latest/getting_started/changelog.html#v4-0
[x] jupyter-resource-usage: https://github.com/jupyter-server/jupyter-resource-usage/releases/tag/v1.0.0
[x] Pending a new nbgitpuller release: https://github.com/jupyterhub/nbgitpuller/pull/315

consideRatio commented 1 year ago

Thank you @jtpio!

This won't be a breaking change as things aren't automatically upgraded, this is just for new installations anyhow. With that in mind I'm thinking this PR should be merged before ASAP and before 1.0.0 release.

consideRatio commented 1 year ago

I see integration tests are failing because a call to a binary no longer around. But this test will be run with new and old versions of software installed in the user environment, because during an upgrade test we install with the previous version first and then install again with a new version, where the user environment isn't updated.

So fixing this test failure must be done in a way supporting either binary name I think, or skipping it if the new binary isn't available - that is also fine in my mind.

jtpio commented 1 year ago

This won't be a breaking change as things aren't automatically upgraded,

Ah that's good news!

Also this change might need a new release of nbgitpuller with https://github.com/jupyterhub/nbgitpuller/pull/240

consideRatio commented 1 year ago

@jtpio we could relax this test I think, and just go for jupyterlab and nbgitpuller instead of jupyterlab 4. etc

consideRatio commented 1 year ago

Also this change might need a new release of nbgitpuller with jupyterhub/nbgitpuller#240

I opened https://github.com/jupyterhub/nbgitpuller/pull/315 about this

jtpio commented 1 year ago

I opened jupyterhub/nbgitpuller#315 about this

Nice thanks!

So fixing this test failure must be done in a way supporting either binary name I think, or skipping it if the new binary isn't available - that is also fine in my mind.

Checking first if the tests pass when using the new jupyter server extension and jupyter labextension list commands. If we don't install notebook==6.* or nbclassic==1.* in the environment then the old jupyter serverextension list should not be available anymore.

Actually even with nbclassic the command would now be jupyter-nbclassic-serverextension: https://nbclassic.readthedocs.io/en/latest/nbclassic_dev_faq.html#noteworthy-updates-in-nbclassic

jtpio commented 1 year ago

Question: should users still be able to access the classic notebook UI? If yes:

we could add nbclassic==1.* to the user environment. The classic notebook UI would be available under /nbclassic
we could document how to install nbclassic in the user environment, for example in https://tljh.jupyter.org/en/latest/howto/user-env/user-environment.html.

consideRatio commented 1 year ago

Since this is for new installs etc, I suggest we make it not come with more stuff.

I'm prefer seeing tljh install as little as possible though to let the admins decide from a relatively clean slate if they install more things etc. I think for now, lets go with this.