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

Dependency on polars<=1.7.0 is too restrictive #348

Open
filbranden opened this issue Nov 4, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #352
Open

Dependency on polars<=1.7.0 is too restrictive #348

filbranden opened this issue Nov 4, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #352

Comments

@filbranden
Copy link

I recently upgraded polars to 1.11.0 on my venv to address some issues of previous versions, and I encountered pip check warnings about the datacompy requirements on it:

datacompy 0.14.1 has requirement polars<=1.7.0,>=0.20.4, but you have polars 1.11.0.

I understand this is perhaps coming from the idea that datacompy was not tested against polars above 1.7.0, but having such restrictive requirements can be hard to handle, since this is now blocking a polars upgrade (well, I'm getting it with an unclean pip check but that's not ideal) and there seems to be no real reason not to trust polars 1.11 to be that much different from 1.7 that it would not work.

Would it be possible to loosen that restriction a bit and require polars<2 instead? Assuming the API will stay the same throughout the 1.x series (which is kind of the point of major/minor versioning), you'd protect against a polars 2 upgrade that would likely or probably break things, but still allow normal minor upgrades to go through to address other issues that are unlikely to cause any breakage.

In any case, even if you'd like to keep it as restrictive as you've been keeping it, can you at least bump it up to 1.11.0 to address the issue at hand? Thanks!

@fdosani
Copy link
Member

fdosani commented Nov 5, 2024

@jdawang @gladysteh99 would you guys mind looking into this. Sorry just OOO right now

@gladysteh99
Copy link
Contributor

@filbranden the upper pin is updated in the develop branch, feel free to use that version before a new release!

@jdawang jdawang linked a pull request Nov 6, 2024 that will close this issue
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 a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants