[INFRA] Remove CI workflow to error on DeprecationWarnings of dependencies

[ymzayek]

• Closes None

Changes proposed in this pull request:

• Remove monthly CI to error on external DeprecationWarnings

This job doesn't work very well. I think there might be a better way to manage this with tox. I suggest to remove for now. Also, we are pretty up-to-date on handling deprecations

[github-actions]

👋 @ymzayek 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.

• PR has an interpretable title.
• PR links to Github issue with mention Closes #XXXX (see our documentation on PR structure)
• Code is PEP8-compliant (see our documentation on coding style)
• Changelog or what's new entry in doc/changes/latest.rst (see our documentation on PR structure)

For new features:

• There is at least one unit test per new function / class (see our documentation on testing)
• The new feature is demoed in at least one relevant example.

For bug fixes:

• There is at least one test that would fail under the original bug conditions.

We will review it as quick as possible, feel free to ping us with questions if needed.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (d95dad9) 91.90% compared to head (75f10e6) 91.90%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4149   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.90%   91.90%           
=======================================
  Files         145      145           
  Lines       16330    16330           
  Branches     3404     3404           
=======================================
  Hits        15008    15008           
  Misses        778      778           
  Partials      544      544           

Flag	Coverage Δ
macos-latest_3.10_test_plotting	91.68% <ø> (?)
macos-latest_3.11_test_plotting	91.68% <ø> (?)
macos-latest_3.12_test_plotting	91.68% <ø> (?)
macos-latest_3.9_test_plotting	?
ubuntu-latest_3.10_test_plotting	91.68% <ø> (ø)
ubuntu-latest_3.11_test_plotting	91.68% <ø> (ø)
ubuntu-latest_3.12_test_plotting	?
ubuntu-latest_3.12_test_pre	?
ubuntu-latest_3.8_test_min	68.88% <ø> (ø)
ubuntu-latest_3.8_test_plot_min	91.40% <ø> (ø)
ubuntu-latest_3.8_test_plotting	91.64% <ø> (ø)
ubuntu-latest_3.9_test_plotting	?
windows-latest_3.10_test_plotting	91.66% <ø> (ø)
windows-latest_3.11_test_plotting	91.66% <ø> (ø)
windows-latest_3.12_test_plotting	?
windows-latest_3.8_test_plotting	?
windows-latest_3.9_test_plotting	?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[bthirion]

I have no personal opinion on this. What is the motivation for removing it ?

[ymzayek]

At the moment it's failing on a deprecation warning that would need to be handled by an external library. It's purpose was to notify us about deprecation warnings that we actually need to handle ourselves before they even fail on new releases or even pre releases of our dependencies. In any case removing it is not risky for us and we still have the python 3.12 job with pre releases that will fail if we have deprecated code associated with a pre release of one of our dependencies and that's usually handled quickly enough

[Remi-Gau]

Definitely low risk to remove.

Chekcing the latest runs:
https://github.com/nilearn/nilearn/actions/workflows/check_deprecations.yml

Last one could not even start and the one before that did catch a few things though.

Would it be worth thinking of better ways to replace it (as part of this PR or another?)

[ymzayek]

Yes let's do it in another PR I would say. I can reopen the original issue.

Last one could not even start and the one before that did catch a few things though.

The one before seems to only have caught internal deprecation warnings (the _LEGACY_FORMAT_MSG) which is also not the purpose of this workflow

[Remi-Gau]

Ok let's merge this and reopen the old issue then.

[bthirion]

Thx for the explanations.