Skip to content

fix: keep generated SDK version files aligned#587

Merged
rodolphe-bejot merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
rodolphebejot/fix-python-sdk-version-alignment
Jul 3, 2026
Merged

fix: keep generated SDK version files aligned#587
rodolphe-bejot merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
rodolphebejot/fix-python-sdk-version-alignment

Conversation

@rodolphe-bejot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

This fixes the stale generated SDK version state that blocks the next Speakeasy Python SDK generation.

client-python#580 updated pyproject.toml and .speakeasy/gen.lock to 2.5.1, but src/mistralai/client/_version.py stayed at 2.5.0. That left the repository inconsistent:

pyproject.toml: 2.5.1
.speakeasy/gen.lock releaseVersion: 2.5.1
src/mistralai/client/_version.py: 2.5.0

The SDK can still work at runtime because _version.py falls back to installed package metadata, but Speakeasy tracks this file as generated state. On the next generation, it expected the previous generated _version.py to be 2.5.1 and the new generated value to be 2.5.2, while the repo still had 2.5.0, so persistent edit merge failed with a conflict.

Changes

  • Align src/mistralai/client/_version.py with the current generated release version, 2.5.1.
  • Update the Generate MISTRALAI workflow's align-version job so it also aligns and stages src/mistralai/client/_version.py together with pyproject.toml and uv.lock.

Validation

  • python -m py_compile src/mistralai/client/_version.py
  • Extracted the modified workflow shell block and ran bash -n
  • git diff --check

Follow-up

After this is merged, rerun the failed Python SDK generation workflow from a clean Speakeasy branch. Do not pre-create the speakeasy/... branch, because Speakeasy rejects auto branches containing manual commits.

@rodolphe-bejot rodolphe-bejot marked this pull request as ready for review July 3, 2026 09:02
@louis-sanna-dev

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@rodolphe-bejot but why did it work before ?

@rodolphe-bejot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@rodolphe-bejot but why did it work before ?

Not sure
But it was introduced with last PR
Not much context on this part tbh

@rodolphe-bejot rodolphe-bejot merged commit 685828a into main Jul 3, 2026
11 checks passed
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.

2 participants