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

altair v4.2.1 without jsonschema upper bound #43

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

jtilly
Copy link
Contributor

@jtilly jtilly commented Jan 27, 2023

Closes #42

This PR removes the upper bound on jsonschema for 4.2.1. This PR should merged instead of #42.

Checklist

  • Used a personal fork of the feedstock to propose changes
  • Bumped the build number (if the version is unchanged)
  • Reset the build number to 0 (if the version changed)
  • Re-rendered with the latest conda-smithy (Use the phrase @conda-forge-admin, please rerender in a comment in this PR for automated rerendering)
  • Ensured the license file is being packaged.

@conda-forge-webservices
Copy link

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipe) and found it was in an excellent condition.

@jtilly jtilly mentioned this pull request Jan 27, 2023
3 tasks
@joelostblom
Copy link
Contributor

Just a note that there will likely be a 4.2.2 release coming in a few days too that fixes the jsonschema issue vega/altair#2857 (comment)

@jtilly
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtilly commented Jan 27, 2023

Should we then add a jsonschema >=4.3.0 to 4.2.1 for now?

recipe/meta.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@joelostblom
Copy link
Contributor

I think for 4.2.2 at least yes. Maybe we could even skip this 4.2.1 release in conda and wait for 4.2.2?

@jtilly
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtilly commented Jan 27, 2023

I interpreted vega/altair#2857 (comment) as meaning that jsonschema >=4.3.0 would work with 4.2.1. Am I reading that wrong?

Maybe we could even skip this 4.2.1 release in conda and wait for 4.2.2?

I would suggest to just merge this with a reasonable constraint and keep pypi and conda-forge releases in sync.

@binste
Copy link
Member

binste commented Jan 27, 2023

Please note that the jsonschema version number 4.3.0 in that issue is wrong. The compatbility is as follows and therefore this PR should be adjusted to jsonschema>=4.5.0 for Altair 4.2.1:

  • Altair 4.2.0 works with jsonschema >=3,<4.17 (just tested this locally to make sure)
    • jsonschema 4.17 introduced format validation on schemas which causes an issue which is fixed in Altair 4.2.1
  • Altair 4.2.1 works with jsonschema >=4.5 (just tested this locally to make sure)
    • Altair 4.2.1 requires the FORMAT_CHECKER attribute on validator classes which was only introduced in jsonschema 4.5
  • Altair 4.2.2 would work with jsonschema >= 3.0

@joelostblom
Copy link
Contributor

I'm ok to merge this with the correction @binste mentioned above

recipe/meta.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@binste
Copy link
Member

binste commented Jan 27, 2023

Please wait with the merge, I need to check something

@binste
Copy link
Member

binste commented Jan 27, 2023

So many version numbers flying around :) Found the correct release of jsonschema which introduced the FORMAT_CHECKER attribute on the validator classes, it's 4.5.0

Updated my comment above. What we want is jsonschema>=4.5.0 for Altair 4.2.1:

Compatibility looks as follows:

  • Altair 4.2.0 works with jsonschema >=3,<4.17 (just tested this locally to make sure)
    • jsonschema 4.17 introduced format validation on schemas which causes an issue which is fixed in Altair 4.2.1
  • Altair 4.2.1 works with jsonschema >=4.5 (just tested this locally to make sure)
    • Altair 4.2.1 requires the FORMAT_CHECKER attribute on validator classes which was only introduced in jsonschema 4.5
  • Altair 4.2.2 would work with jsonschema >= 3.0

Sorry for any confusion.

recipe/meta.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Stefan Binder <binder_stefan@outlook.com>
@ocefpaf
Copy link
Member

ocefpaf commented Jan 31, 2023

@jtilly do you still need this PR to be merged?

@jtilly
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtilly commented Jan 31, 2023

@jtilly do you still need this PR to be merged?

No, thank you. I think 4.2.2 is enough.

@jtilly jtilly closed this Jan 31, 2023
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.

None yet

5 participants