DOC: Bump fastparquet version #24590
Conversation
|
cc @jorisvandenbossche this fixes the doc error you were seeing. |
Yeah, maybe that is best .. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #24590 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 92.36% 92.36%
=======================================
Files 166 166
Lines 52497 52497
=======================================
Hits 48489 48489
Misses 4008 4008
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #24590 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 92.37% 92.38% +<.01%
==========================================
Files 166 166
Lines 52396 52395 -1
==========================================
Hits 48403 48403
+ Misses 3993 3992 -1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
For now, this PR is only about the doc build. But if the suggestion of Tom is followed to bump the fastparquet version, we should also update the docs (although, if we decide to not nump the minimum version, we should maybe still mention that for datetime data, the latest version is required) |
then pls do this here |
|
I've made the changes to bump the min version to 0.2.1 locally, but I think there's an issue with the conda-forge package. Going to fix that before pushing again. |
|
why are you bumping for parquet reading? (we had already bumped for this release I think). |
|
In the discussion above, Joris and I (and I thought you) agreed that reading datetimes is important enough to bump the minimum required first. On master, we allow using fastparquet <0.2.1, but that will fail at runtime if trying to read a datetimetz column. The proposal is to require fastparquet>=0.2.1 |
|
its fine. we don't usually bump up this fast, but ok. |
|
but would need to change the tests & docs |
|
but fixing the CF package first. |
what is this? |
|
CF=conda-forge. There was an issue with the 0.2.1 build:
conda-forge/fastparquet-feedstock#21
…On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 11:45 AM Jeff Reback ***@***.***> wrote:
but fixing the CF package first.
what is this?
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#24590 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABQHInnlsa-_-fi0B86YQOiGGd-c3vAQks5u_kGhgaJpZM4ZoEzZ>
.
|
|
ahh ok |
|
ok merge ok then |
|
merge? |
|
No , the problem is not yet fixed (see the doc build log on travis) Possibly due the conda-forge package problem? (@TomAugspurger the conda list output indicates it installed fastparquet 0.2.1 from conda-forge, but then the error is still there and the |
|
ok cool. |
|
The fastparquet 0.2.1 conda-forge package was accidentally packaging 0.1.6 (but labeling it as 0.2.1), so the error persisted. The linux builds for a corrected fastparquet are just finishing now. I'll clean up my version bump and push. |
|
Some travis builds are failing (didn't check why), but just checked that the doc build is now working (the error is gone) |
|
The travis build is failing because not all the conda packages are done building. Some are still pulling in the (bad) 0.2.1 fastparquet. Conda install the bad 0.2.1, but then I'll let those finish up before pushing again (with the dev env update). |
|
FYI, conda-forge stopped building packages for Python 3.5 on MacOS, so I've removed fastparquet from that env. |
|
thanks! |
Should we just bump the min version to 0.2.1? It's quite new, but I think reading datetime data is somewhat common :) It'll save us bug reports.