New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[MAINT] remove obsolete version comparison #3883
Conversation
Not sure I understand what to do about this one: nilearn/nilearn/plotting/displays/_slicers.py Lines 464 to 472 in 5734dba
|
👋 @Remi-Gau Thanks for creating a PR! Until this PR is ready for review, you can include the [WIP] tag in its title, or leave it as a github draft. Please make sure it is compliant with our contributing guidelines. In particular, be sure it checks the boxes listed below.
For new features:
For bug fixes:
We will review it as quick as possible, feel free to ping us with questions if needed. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3883 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.60% 91.74% +0.13%
==========================================
Files 134 134
Lines 15713 15733 +20
Branches 3271 3273 +2
==========================================
+ Hits 14394 14434 +40
+ Misses 770 757 -13
+ Partials 549 542 -7
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
... and 13 files with indirect coverage changes 📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
It's not very clear from the comment because there has been a refactoring but from the git blame and the original issue matplotlib/matplotlib#9280 I gathered that you can remove the second part of L465: |
Can you also have a look at nilearn/nilearn/surface/surface.py Lines 107 to 108 in 5734dba
nilearn/nilearn/surface/tests/test_surface.py Lines 573 to 574 in 5734dba
They both deal with np 1.15 even though the first one incorrectly references np 1.5 |
Thanks: let's try this then |
could not figure out how to get those to work |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM so far.
@jeromedockes any pointers on these comments #3883 (comment)? |
it works fine as it is (including with newer numpy versions) so we can just delete the comments |
Good with me |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM @Remi-Gau !
The codecov failure refers to just one line that's not covered (though not due to this PR), if it's easy to add a test let's do it here? WDYT?
added a dummy test to cover that piece of code: I love testing but not a big fan of adding tests just for coverage's. I had look at the how deprecation is handled in general and it seems that we have quite a few deprecation helper functions that have gone mostly idle: so some refactoring seems to be needed |
Fair enough, tbh I didn't take a close look at the function. Yes I am for trying to standardize the way we handle deprecations |
Oops just meant to comment not close this |
_compare_version
is used in codebase referencing package versions we don't support anymore and remove extraneous code #3793