Skip to content

Migrate to schema version v1, with rattler build - #50

Merged
bpiotrzkowski merged 3 commits into
conda-forge:mainfrom
duncanmmacleod:rattler
Feb 17, 2026
Merged

bpiotrzkowski merged 3 commits into
conda-forge:mainfrom
duncanmmacleod:rattler

Conversation

@duncanmmacleod

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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.

…6.02.14.23.29.17

Other tools:
- conda-build 25.11.1
- rattler-build 0.55.0
- rattler-build-conda-compat 1.4.10
@conda-forge-admin

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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/recipe.yaml) and found it was in an excellent condition.

@bpiotrzkowski

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Looks like the CI pipelines are failing because the unittests are failing. The template being generated here aren't matching the set of fixed templates, giving different answers for certain numbers (11 vs 12). This is likely due to rounding differences.

@duncanmmacleod

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Looks like the CI pipelines are failing because the unittests are failing. The template being generated here aren't matching the set of fixed templates, giving different answers for certain numbers (11 vs 12). This is likely due to rounding differences.

The failures seem to be repeating in CI, so don't seem to be transient numerical precision issues. I cannot reproduce them on my machine. Do you have any recommendations on how to address the failures in the feedstock?

@bpiotrzkowski

bpiotrzkowski commented Feb 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The failures seem to be repeating in CI, so don't seem to be transient numerical precision issues.

@duncanmmacleod I agree these don't look to be transient, the tests here are systematically rounding to a higher value (regardless of units like minutes vs hours vs months). This rounding is done by naturaldelta in the jinja-humanize extension, which falls under the python package humanize. I noticed that that versions in the latest job for this and the latest in the ligo-followup-advocate repo don't match, and we don't currently pin this version.

I can see a PR for humanize 4.15.0 that changed how naturaldelta works, switching from rounding via int() to round(): python-humanize/humanize#272

Here's a fix that updates this version and the templates for ligo-followup-advocate that you can backport: https://git.ligo.org/emfollow/ligo-followup-advocate/-/merge_requests/236

@bpiotrzkowski
bpiotrzkowski merged commit d1c8fb7 into conda-forge:main Feb 17, 2026
4 checks passed
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.

3 participants