Update snakebids to 0.9.x

[kaitj]

Proposed changes

This updates the snakebids dependency from ^0.8.0 to ^0.9.0, which is a required to resolve khanlab/scattr#73.

As an aside, there should be a better way to handle this. Currently upgrading directly in the scattr repo will throw an error due to the conflicting dependencies.

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an x in the boxes that apply

• Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionalitiy)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Other (if none of the other choices apply)

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you are unsure about any of the choices, don't hesitate to ask!

• Changes have been tested to ensure that fix is effective or that a feature works.
• Changes pass the unit tests
• Code has been run through the poe quality task
• I have included necessary documentation or comments (as necessary)
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published

Notes

All PRs will undergo the unit testing before being reviewed. You may be requested to explain or make additional changes before the PR is accepted.

[tkkuehn]

LGTM. Readthedocs failure is because there are no docs on main yet.

As an aside, there should be a better way to handle this. Currently upgrading directly in the scattr repo will throw an error due to the conflicting dependencies.

What do you have in mind? We could adopt the "no upper limit" approach Peter was advocating for the other day. This kind of thing is I guess one of the symptoms that would avoid.

[kaitj]

I'm not sure I have a good solution - I've thought about this in the past too. Adopting a no upper limit policy could work in the downstream repositories (e.g. no upper limit in scattr, but upper limit here. On the flipside, adopting a no upper limit I think could potentially have unintended maintenance consequences (which would hopefully be caught by testing).

We can move this discussion offline / elsewhere - think this is a bigger issue that goes beyond labelmerge + scattr.