Skip to content

Add support for Python 3.10#1940

Merged
tamargrey merged 11 commits intomainfrom
support-py3.10
Mar 9, 2022
Merged

Add support for Python 3.10#1940
tamargrey merged 11 commits intomainfrom
support-py3.10

Conversation

@tamargrey
Copy link
Contributor

Closes #1803

@gsheni gsheni changed the title Add support for python 3.10 Add support for Python 3.10 Mar 9, 2022
fail-fast: false
matrix:
python_version: ["3.7", "3.8", "3.9"]
python_version: ["3.7", "3.8", "3.9", "3.10"]
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not sure we can actually do this since 3.10 isn't supported by koalas and we use koalas in our docs. Woodwork only runs the docs build for 3.8 in its CI. Is it better to match Woodwork and only run on 3.8 or have all but 3.10 be run?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Have all but 3.10 run (since its not slowing us down, and increase our testing scenarios).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we need to put a note somewhere in the docs that 3.10 isn't support for Koalas (yet)?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That also means the 3.10 unit tests koalas run is pretty much useless

Can we look into excluding them from the test runs?

Not exactly what we want but gives an idea:
https://github.community/t/how-to-conditionally-include-exclude-items-in-matrix-eg-based-on-branch/16853/6

Copy link
Contributor Author

@tamargrey tamargrey Mar 9, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Seems like we would want to add

      exclude:
        - python_version: "3.10"
        - libraries: "koalas"

if im understanding correctly

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

90a255c

oops

[Invalid workflow file: .github/workflows/unit_tests_with_latest_deps.yml#L18](https://github.com/alteryx/featuretools/actions/runs/1959930281/workflow)
The workflow is not valid. .github/workflows/unit_tests_with_latest_deps.yml (Line: 18, Col: 7): Unexpected value 'exclude'

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

using a dash mark for each would exclude all 3.10, and all koalas

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

that is indeed what happened 🤦‍♀️ thank you!

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 9, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #1940 (173c575) into main (ef89147) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 173c575 differs from pull request most recent head f1aa760. Consider uploading reports for the commit f1aa760 to get more accurate results

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1940   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.99%   98.99%           
=======================================
  Files         146      146           
  Lines       16438    16438           
=======================================
  Hits        16273    16273           
  Misses        165      165           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ef89147...f1aa760. Read the comment docs.

@tamargrey tamargrey marked this pull request as ready for review March 9, 2022 20:29
gsheni
gsheni previously approved these changes Mar 9, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@gsheni gsheni 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 assuming tests pass and my 1 suggestion is applied.

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.

Add Python 3.10 support

3 participants