Temporarily pin flox <0.9.14 [all tests ci] #1409
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
leewujung
added
the
Needs Complete Testing
leewujung
changed the title
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1409 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 83.52% 85.46% +1.94%
==========================================
Files 64 71 +7
Lines 5686 6569 +883
==========================================
+ Hits 4749 5614 +865
- Misses 937 955 +18
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
Ok, confirmed that this is a flox issue. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Seems like the function that caused the most recent test failure was
_datetime_nanminintroduced just 4 days ago at flox=0.9.14 (here). Probably why the CI runs with #1403 didn't catch this when it was run a few weeks back. Let's see if this is the issue in the new CI runs.