Future of neomodel - Githubissues

kl-thamm commented 1 year ago

Excuse me for opening 3 issues in one day, but I tried to keep everything separate from each other. I began using this package because I was hoping that it would allow me to skip writing the ever repeating cypher queries for simple CRUD tasks. I was clever enough to check out that there was still activity in this repo (last commit on Master was less than a month ago back then). This seemed to be a good idea until I started to notice some severe problems (see the other issues).

I then saw that i am using neo4j 4.4.5 and that the last officially supported version is neo4j 4.2. Great - but the Readme says that 4.3 is being tested - so it cant be long until 4.5 is supported as well (at least I thought). However I then discovered that there has not been a single release for almost a year, and that basically all branches are stale. It was then that I noticed that the last commits on the master branch were only dev ops or documentation related as well.

For these reasons I am wondering, if this repo is still maintained and wether I could expect at least the basic functionality (CRUD including indexes and schemas) will work with current releases of neo4j in the forseeable future?

Otherwise: Could you please add a deprecation notice to the repo / readme / software so others dont invest time into implementing solutions with this package before noticing its stale?

OlehChyhyryn commented 1 year ago

It is not deprecated, but maintainers are low-contributing to the package for the last year. It regularly happened before.

https://github.com/cchangelabs/neomodel/releases/tag/3.3.4

You can use the .whl package from our fork, where we applied important fixes and optimization from the main branch. Because the 4.0.8 branch has pretty major issues

kl-thamm commented 1 year ago

Hi, thanks for your reply and your effort in maintaining this. However as I am in the beginning of building an application, this seems way too risky for me to rely on. The additional commits are very minor compared to the existing issues as far as I can tell.

mariusconjeaud commented 1 year ago

Hello, As Oleg said, maintainers haven't been contributing much recently ; but there is still willingness to maintain this library. @jexp As part of this, I am currently updating the dependencies up to the latest 4.4.x version of Neo4j (LTS) and running the tests. It looks like it is working so I will create a branch if some users want to try it out.

Some next steps could be :

Testing support for Neo4j version 5
Merging some of the community extensions (optional labels, n-hop traversals, filtering on a remote node) @tonioo @owinogradow
Fixing long-standing issues
Looking at the standing PRs and see if some can be merged
Adding support for shapely 2.x (for spatial properties)

Of course, we would love support on this, so if there is anything you would like to pick up or have suggestions, or want to help prioritize the issues / open PRs, ... Please join ! @kl-thamm @olegchigirin

a-takahashi223 commented 1 year ago

I would like you to pick up #627 . CI is important.

mariusconjeaud commented 1 year ago

With pleasure ! I'm not aware about how CI is handled in this repo (yet) so I cannot help you. What would you need ?

a-takahashi223 commented 1 year ago

According to this post

any repositories you currently have connected to travis-ci.org must be migrated over to travis-ci.com before the end of May 2021 if you want your builds to continue without interruption. To do this you can simply sign up to travis-ci.com and link the repositories that you want to migrate. Your existing configurations will work as expected on travis-ci.com and you do not need to alter your build definitions. Alternatively, there’s a migration feature, which will allow transferring a limited amount of build history data from travis-ci.org to travis-ci.com.

mariusconjeaud commented 1 year ago

@aanastasiou This requires credentials I don't have :-)

OlehChyhyryn commented 1 year ago

@mariusconjeaud

As the first and most important request, I want to suggest release master as a hot-fix release because the current state of 4.0.8 is broken in many scenarios and not optimized on system start.

https://github.com/neo4j-contrib/neomodel/pull/604 https://github.com/neo4j-contrib/neomodel/pull/607 https://github.com/neo4j-contrib/neomodel/pull/601

In our fork, we created a .whl package for as (as I mentioned), but it would be great if they became a part of the main package release.

I am great to hear that this project will get some love and support.

jexp commented 1 year ago

I think we should just move it to GH actions and remove the dependency on travis-ci.

@whatSocks do you have those credentials and can share them privately with @mariusconjeaud ?

mariusconjeaud commented 1 year ago

OK, good news ! A new release came out ! For now, it only integrated some fix to the docs, and extended support to Python 3.10 and Neo4j version 4.4, but I hope this can give reassurance that the project is moving forward :-)

mariusconjeaud commented 1 year ago

@olegchigirin #604 and #607 are included in the 4.0.9 release since the PRs had been merged. As for #601, you had closed the PR yourself, so what about it ?

mariusconjeaud commented 1 year ago

Note that we pushed a release 4.0.10 because the way I updated the packaging wasn't completely right. 4.0.10 fixes that.

OlehChyhyryn commented 1 year ago

Note that we pushed a release 4.0.10 because the way I updated the packaging wasn't completely right. 4.0.10 fixes that.

We will test the 4.0.10 release with our project running 3.11 python. If everything runs OKAY, I will inform you. Maybe neomodel really is able to support it =)

mariusconjeaud commented 1 year ago

There is no big incompatibility from what I saw ; just a version compatibility between Shapely 2.x and neomodel on one side ; and Shapely 1.x and Python 3.11 on the other. But there must be a workaround for this (I asked Thanos to look into Shapely as he worked on the Spatial type which requires Shapely)

mariusconjeaud commented 1 year ago

Tested again Python 3.11 support today based on @olegchigirin input, and it works now !

aanastasiou commented 1 year ago

@mariusconjeaud If it is of any help, I have been using Neomodel on Python 3.11 in other projects as well without any compatibility problems this far.

aaron-iles commented 1 year ago

Now that the #668 has been merged, is there a release scheduled soon to support version 5?

mariusconjeaud commented 1 year ago

@aaron-iles Yes there is !

I am just trying to assess the size of another PR that should come soon with many improvements added to fetching nodes ; as well as some code cleanup and addition of pre-commits I am doing now. The idea is to see if those should make into 5.0 or 5.x

But I think only the code cleanup will make it into 5.0

mariusconjeaud commented 1 year ago

Posted an announcement in the Discussions section : https://github.com/neo4j-contrib/neomodel/discussions/689

Feel free to add Ideas for future improvements there.

neo4j-contrib / neomodel

Future of neomodel #653