Skip to content
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

Fix bump file #343

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Fix bump file #343

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

brichet
Copy link
Contributor

@brichet brichet commented Aug 30, 2024

Fix the dependencies in jupyter_collaboration metapackage, and fix the bump script.

Initially discussed at #342 (comment)

cc. @krassowski

Copy link
Contributor

Binder 👈 Launch a Binder on branch brichet/jupyter_collaboration/fix_bump

@brichet
Copy link
Contributor Author

brichet commented Sep 2, 2024

Any clue on the check-release failure ?

I can't reproduce the steps locally, so it's hard to debug.

@jtpio
Copy link
Member

jtpio commented Sep 3, 2024

Any clue on the check-release failure ?

This seems to be failing as part of the check-python step, and related to jupyter-server/jupyter_releaser#499.

Which was also noticed in voila-dashboards/voici#106.

A workaround for now could be to disable the check-python step. Until there is a way to skip the pip install in the releaser, or be able to install all packages of the monorepo at once in this check.

@brichet
Copy link
Contributor Author

brichet commented Sep 3, 2024

Thanks for your feedback @jtpio.

A workaround for now could be to disable the check-python step. Until there is a way to skip the pip install in the releaser, or be able to install all packages of the monorepo at once in this check.

I'll see if I can find a way to keep this check, otherwise we'll probably ignore it until there's a fix on the releaser.

@krassowski
Copy link
Member

krassowski commented Sep 3, 2024

So instead of skipping the check-python I wonder if we can tell pip to include a local registry using --extra-index-url or --find-links pointing to the local file system on the runner. This too may require a change in releaser, but that would be probably beneficial to many other packages (like jupyter-ai and voila) so I think it is worth it.

@davidbrochart
Copy link
Collaborator

It looks like we are missing the pre-release specifier:

ERROR: Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement jupyter-collaboration-ui>=1.0.0 (from jupyter-collaboration) (from versions: 1.0.0a0, 1.0.0a1, 1.0.0a2, 1.0.0b0, 1.0.0b1, 1.0.0b2, 1.0.0b3, 1.0.0b4, 1.0.0b5, 1.0.0b6)
ERROR: No matching distribution found for jupyter-collaboration-ui>=1.0.0

@brichet
Copy link
Contributor Author

brichet commented Sep 20, 2024

It looks like we are missing the pre-release specifier:

ERROR: Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement jupyter-collaboration-ui>=1.0.0 (from jupyter-collaboration) (from versions: 1.0.0a0, 1.0.0a1, 1.0.0a2, 1.0.0b0, 1.0.0b1, 1.0.0b2, 1.0.0b3, 1.0.0b4, 1.0.0b5, 1.0.0b6)
ERROR: No matching distribution found for jupyter-collaboration-ui>=1.0.0

Yes, we still have an issue because of the releaser that doesn't allow installing local python package with pip (AFAIK): #343 (comment)

@davidbrochart
Copy link
Collaborator

So do you think we should merge anyway?

@jtpio
Copy link
Member

jtpio commented Sep 20, 2024

It would be better to get that check-release check green, to give more confidence when making releases and catching potential other issues.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants