Rebuild for proj921

[regro-cf-autotick-bot]

This PR has been triggered in an effort to update proj921.

Notes and instructions for merging this PR:

1. Please merge the PR only after the tests have passed.
2. Feel free to push to the bot's branch to update this PR if needed.

Please note that if you close this PR we presume that the feedstock has been rebuilt, so if you are going to perform the rebuild yourself don't close this PR until the your rebuild has been merged.

If this PR was opened in error or needs to be updated please add the bot-rerun label to this PR. The bot will close this PR and schedule another one. If you do not have permissions to add this label, you can use the phrase @conda-forge-admin, please rerun bot in a PR comment to have the conda-forge-admin add it for you.

_{This PR was created by the regro-cf-autotick-bot. The regro-cf-autotick-bot is a service to automatically track the dependency graph, migrate packages, and propose package version updates for conda-forge. Feel free to drop us a line if there are any issues! This PR was generated by https://github.com/regro/cf-scripts/actions/runs/5149640915, please use this URL for debugging.}

[conda-forge-webservices]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipe) and found it was in an excellent condition.

[jorisvandenbossche]

Failures seems to be because of some test failure:

=========================== short test summary info ============================
FAILED test/test_transformer.py::test_repr[7789-8401-<Transformation Transformer: helmert>\nDescription: ITRF2014 to ETRF2014 (2)\nArea of Use:\n- name: Europe - onshore and offshore: Albania; Andorra; Austria; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Cyprus; Czechia; Denmark; Estonia; Faroe Islands; Finland; France; Germany; Gibraltar; Greece; Hungary; Ireland; Italy; Kosovo; Latvia; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Malta; Moldova; Monaco; Montenegro; Netherlands; North Macedonia; Norway including Svalbard and Jan Mayen; Poland; Portugal; Romania; San Marino; Serbia; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; United Kingdom (UK) including Channel Islands and Isle of Man; Vatican City State.\n- bounds: (-16.1, 32.88, 40.18, 84.73)] - AssertionError: assert '<Unknown Tra...\n- undefined' == '<Transformat...40.18, 84.73)'
  - <Transformation Transformer: helmert>
  - Description: ITRF2014 to ETRF2014 (2)
  + <Unknown Transformer: unknown>
  + Description: unavailable until proj_trans is called
    Area of Use:
  + - undefined
  - - name: Europe - onshore and offshore: Albania; Andorra; Austria; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Cyprus; Czechia; Denmark; Estonia; Faroe Islands; Finland; France; Germany; Gibraltar; Greece; Hungary; Ireland; Italy; Kosovo; Latvia; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Malta; Moldova; Monaco; Montenegro; Netherlands; North Macedonia; Norway including Svalbard and Jan Mayen; Poland; Portugal; Romania; San Marino; Serbia; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; United Kingdom (UK) including Channel Islands and Isle of Man; Vatican City State.
  - - bounds: (-16.1, 32.88, 40.18, 84.73)
FAILED test/crs/test_crs.py::test_datum_unknown - AssertionError: assert 'Unknown base...0,0,0,0,0,0,0' == 'Unknown base...0,0,0,0,0,0,0'
  - Unknown based on WGS84 ellipsoid using towgs84=0,0,0,0,0,0,0
  + Unknown based on WGS 84 ellipsoid using towgs84=0,0,0,0,0,0,0
  ?                     +

[xylar]

@snowman2, are we best off waiting for pyproj4/pyproj#1291 and a new pyproj release? I seem to recall in the past that we typically need a new pyproj for each new proj.

[snowman2]

I think the test failures are okay and it would be fine to skip them until the next pyproj release. Or, you could wait for the next pyproj release with the fixes added (coming soon ... waiting for vpckg to add PROJ 9.2.1).

[xylar]

I tried disabling the failing tests but I'm definitely not sure I got the syntax right. I'll keep an eye on it this weekend.

[xylar]

@snowman2, we're still getting a test failure under ppc64le:

FAILED test/test_transform.py::test_transform_single_point_nad83_to_nad27 - AssertionError: 
Arrays are not almost equal to 0 decimals

Mismatched elements: 2 / 2 (100%)
Max absolute difference: 4268817.53503948
Max relative difference: 1.00000083
 x: array([ 6.e+05, -4.e+00])
 y: array([ 569722, 4268814])

Any insight into whether that's also one to skip for now?

[snowman2]

I think that one should be looked into. Though, it may be difficult to debug...

[snowman2]

@conda-forge-admin, please rerender

[snowman2]

My current thoughts are to merge with ppc64le failing and update it later once investigation has determined whether the failure is okay or a fix has been applied.

[xylar]

@snowman2, if the ppc64le tests are failing, the packages won't get uploaded for those builds so you might as well skip ppc64le with a note that we will fix it in a subsequent build. That would be more standard procedure I think than merging with tests we know are failing.

Or maybe I misunderstood and you were thinking of skipping the failing tests for ppc64le instead?

[snowman2]

the packages won't get uploaded for those builds so you might as well skip ppc64le with a note that we will fix it in a subsequent build. That would be more standard procedure I think than merging with tests we know are failing.

That sounds good to me. I am out of date on the best-practices as we have just merged them in the past. What is the syntax for that?

[xylar]

@conda-forge-admin, please rerender

[xylar]

What is the syntax for that?

I had to look it up, so I went ahead and added a comment and the appropriate skip.

Not having ppc64le support for this build could cause trouble downstream (e.g. as downstream packages try to build with ppc64le support and it unexpectedly fails) so we should try to sort this out sooner rather than later. But I don't really have any relevant expertise so I'm okay with skipping for now.

[snowman2]

Thanks @xylar 👍

[akrherz]

Thanks for the efforts here folks. Could somebody please restart the hopefully transient main branch CI failure?

[xylar]

@akrherz, thanks for noticing that. I just restarted and will keep an eye on it.

[xylar]

@akrherz, it passed after a rerun.