🧪 Test numba 0.57.0 result comparison

[s-weigand]

Since numba is one of our core dependencies and currently the blocker to support python 3.11, we should help them test their release candidate.

Checklist

• ✔️ Passing the tests (mandatory for all PR's)

[github-actions]

👈 Launch a binder notebook on branch s-weigand/pyglotaran/test-numba-0.57.0rc1

[github-actions]

Benchmark is done. Checkout the benchmark result page.
Benchmark differences below 5% might be due to CI noise.

Benchmark diff v0.7.0 vs. main

Parametrized benchmark signatures:

BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(index_dependent, grouped, weight)

All benchmarks:

       before           after         ratio
     [9adf4a49]       [7e0285a7]
     <v0.7.0>                   
           failed           failed      n/a  BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(False, False, False)
           failed           failed      n/a  BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(False, False, True)
           failed           failed      n/a  BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(False, True, False)
           failed           failed      n/a  BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(False, True, True)
           failed           failed      n/a  BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(True, False, False)
           failed           failed      n/a  BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(True, False, True)
           failed           failed      n/a  BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(True, True, False)
           failed           failed      n/a  BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(True, True, True)
             219M             219M     1.00  IntegrationTwoDatasets.peakmem_optimize
       1.02±0.01s       1.03±0.03s     1.01  IntegrationTwoDatasets.time_optimize

Benchmark diff main vs. PR

Parametrized benchmark signatures:

BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(index_dependent, grouped, weight)

All benchmarks:

       before           after         ratio
     [7e0285a7]       [7fa71983]
           failed           failed      n/a  BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(False, False, False)
           failed           failed      n/a  BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(False, False, True)
           failed           failed      n/a  BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(False, True, False)
           failed           failed      n/a  BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(False, True, True)
           failed           failed      n/a  BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(True, False, False)
           failed           failed      n/a  BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(True, False, True)
           failed           failed      n/a  BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(True, True, False)
           failed           failed      n/a  BenchmarkOptimize.time_optimize(True, True, True)
             219M             220M     1.01  IntegrationTwoDatasets.peakmem_optimize
       1.03±0.03s         964±50ms     0.93  IntegrationTwoDatasets.time_optimize

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch and project coverage have no change.

Comparison is base (7e0285a) 88.3% compared to head (7fa7198) 88.3%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##            main   #1276    +/-   ##
======================================
  Coverage   88.3%   88.3%            
======================================
  Files        107     107            
  Lines       5122    5122            
  Branches     847     960   +113     
======================================
  Hits        4525    4525            
  Misses       479     479            
  Partials     118     118            

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[s-weigand]

Just trying out numba 0.57.0 on py311 and comparing results

[sonarcloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication

[s-weigand]

This PR served its purpose by showing that we get the same results on python 3.11 with numba 0.57.0 and we did before.