On 18/03/25 12:19, Stuart Prescott wrote:
When I saw the list yesterday, it showed dozens and dozens of packages running
tests. In my previous upload where there
was a bug, I saw around 20 or so packages failing.
There's only 5 there, likely because it is bad display or things that passed do
not show up. On that entire page, you
will mostly find packages that are _failing_. It is also not correct (or even
believable) that only 5 packages in the whole archive ever
depend on matplotlib for tests given this is a very popular plotting library.
So that statement is incorrect.
hmm, ok, I'm very happy to be incorrect on that. I did check the excuses pages
of some other packages and they seemed to show lots of packages that were
passing. That's great news.
I'm still quite confident that we're undertesting though - I saw on the
developer list for src:sasview that it's not compatible with matplotlib 3.10
and yet no flags from any tests are coming up. Like many uses of matplotlib, it
probably doesn't even have tests that actually touch the failing code.
Realistically, testing reverse-dependencies and reverse-build-dependencies (for
which I asked Lucas in another mail) is the maximum we can do here, otherwise
we can never make a release :)
Do you have some suggestions to get this moving in a better way?
With regards to sasview, is the mail publically archived somewhere? The
matplotlib version uploaded is a minor release here, with few deprecation and
removal
of few APIs, replacements for which are readily available. If even after fixing
those, if sasview does not work, I'd be quite surprised!
cheers
Stuart
Best,
Nilesh
