Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

build: enhance dependency management and make scipy optional. #1215

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Apr 12, 2023

Conversation

egparedes
Copy link
Contributor

@egparedes egparedes commented Mar 17, 2023

Added:

  • New requirements files for oldest versions and oldest versions with extras.
  • Documentation for the semi-automatic dependency management workflow with pip-tools and cog.
  • Daily CI badge in the main README file.
  • New ufuncs module for NativeFunctions.

Changed:

  • Update and fix minimum gt4py package dependencies.
  • Update and fix minimum development dependencies.
  • Rename docs/development/CI folder to docs/development/tools.
  • Small additions to ci-infrastructure documentation.
  • Daily CI action now tests several requirements files: more recent, oldest versions and oldest versions with extras.
  • Small enhancements to tox.ini, which now uses optional environment variables for overriding some settings like the requirements files used for the test environment.
  • Refactor ufuncs and code generation for cartesian-NumPy backend.

@havogt
Copy link
Contributor

havogt commented Mar 20, 2023

It's a simple change, but with quite heavy maintenance cost, unless we find an easy way to test both cases (scipy, no scipy).

@egparedes egparedes force-pushed the simplify-requirements branch from c663b8b to e2e7024 Compare April 3, 2023 21:44
@egparedes egparedes changed the title build: make scipy dependency optional and accept older versions in other packages build: enhance dependency management and make scipy optional. Apr 5, 2023
@egparedes egparedes marked this pull request as ready for review April 5, 2023 16:22
@egparedes egparedes requested review from gronerl, havogt and DropD April 5, 2023 16:22
Copy link
Contributor

@havogt havogt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me.

Comment on lines 8 to 10
pull_request:
branches:
- main
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just a reminder to change back before merge.

Copy link
Contributor

@DropD DropD left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Docs are ok.

@egparedes egparedes merged commit 64d8311 into GridTools:main Apr 12, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants