Bug#975535: elpy's autopkg tests fail with Python 3.9
Hi Adrian, Adrian Bunk writes: > On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 10:09:03PM -0500, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >> Hi Adrian, > > Hi Nicholas, > >> Thank you for checking in with this bug! Please let me know ASAP if >> another autoremoval exception will be provided, because if necessary I >> can do the shady thing of disabling tests to buy time...but I'd really >> prefer not to! > > I am not a member of a release team, just a normal developer. > ACK :-) > Personally, I would go with disabling some (or all) tests if the package > is overally working and the tests are the only worry for missing bullseye. > Basic functionality is ok, depending on the working definition of "basic", but my feeling is that it's a minefield for intermediate and advanced use of the IDE features due to a big wave of breaking changes introduced by various dependencies in the period right between this bug was filed, continuing until shortly before our soft freeze. Active upstream issues that affect Elpy in bullseye have been multiplying, and at this point I'm starting to find it strange that this (#975535) is the only reported bug. The primary maintainer has injured hands and will be AFK for a while as he recovers. The second maintainer has a new job and no time, but my hope is the upstream community will band together in time to get Elpy into a good state in time for bullseye. I will contribute what I can, but worry that it won't be enough. Coordination is occurring here: https://github.com/jorgenschaefer/elpy/issues/1884 Regards, Nicholas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#975535: elpy's autopkg tests fail with Python 3.9
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 10:09:03PM -0500, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Hi Adrian, Hi Nicholas, > Thank you for checking in with this bug! Please let me know ASAP if > another autoremoval exception will be provided, because if necessary I > can do the shady thing of disabling tests to buy time...but I'd really > prefer not to! I am not a member of a release team, just a normal developer. Personally, I would go with disabling some (or all) tests if the package is overally working and the tests are the only worry for missing bullseye. > Regards, > Nicholas cu Adrian
Bug#975535: elpy's autopkg tests fail with Python 3.9
Hi Adrian, Thank you for checking in with this bug! Please let me know ASAP if another autoremoval exception will be provided, because if necessary I can do the shady thing of disabling tests to buy time...but I'd really prefer not to! My primary upstream contacts appear to be on holiday and/or seem to be unavailable for some reason, but the upstream community has stepped forward to fix these issues. My primary worry is that this won't happen fast enough to prevent autoremoval during the next phase of the freeze, with no reentry into testing. Adrian Bunk writes: > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 08:57:49PM -0500, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >>... >> I've made progress with this, and encountered a couple blockers along >> the way (one outstanding at this time). Currently the need for Jedi >> 0.18 means the work in git (Elpy 1.35 minus rope, plus cherrypicked >> support for Jedi refactoring) cannot yet be uploaded. >>... > > Jedi 0.18.0 is now in unstable: > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/python-jedi > Unfortunately it looks like the upstreams PRs for Jedi 0.18 support are insufficient/incomplete, and I'll need more time to work on bugs introduced by dependencies that introduced various incompatible changes. The state of Elpy is worse than I'd like to see...on my moderately patched local HEAD (based on upstream master branch) I'm seeing upwards of 27 tests that must be skipped. It also looks like Python 3.9 may have made breaking changes to how pdb works. The good news is 438/465 tests are still good (on my local HEAD), so on the whole it's better to have Elpy in Bullseye than to not :-) Version 1.34 has 423/436 passing. IIRC 1.35 has only seven failing tests, but less coverage than upstream master's HEAD. At this point I'm using an upstream snapshot in the Debian git project for Elpy, because staying close to the next upstream release will make cherry picking any fixes much easier, and I've recently seen a nontrivial amount of code churn and refactoring. My hope is that the PR discussed at the following link will provide the solution for bullseye: https://github.com/jorgenschaefer/elpy/issues/1868 Regards, Nicholas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#975535: elpy's autopkg tests fail with Python 3.9
On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 08:57:49PM -0500, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >... > I've made progress with this, and encountered a couple blockers along > the way (one outstanding at this time). Currently the need for Jedi > 0.18 means the work in git (Elpy 1.35 minus rope, plus cherrypicked > support for Jedi refactoring) cannot yet be uploaded. >... Jedi 0.18.0 is now in unstable: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/python-jedi > Regards, > Nicholas cu Adrian
Bug#975535: elpy's autopkg tests fail with Python 3.9
Hi Matthias, On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:21:29AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > Package: src:elpy > Version: 1.34.0-2 > Severity: serious > Tags: sid bullseye > User: debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: python3.9 > > https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/amd64/e/elpy/8349971/log.gz > > [...] > Ran 436 tests, 432 results as expected, 3 unexpected, 1 skipped (2020-11-22 > 10:13:43+, 71.268224 sec) > > 3 unexpected results: >FAILED elpy-company-backend-should-add-shell-candidates >FAILED elpy-fold-at-point-should-fold-and-unfold-comments >FAILED elpy-pdb-debug-buffer-should-ignore-breakpoints > > 1 skipped results: > SKIPPED elpy-shell-send-region-or-buffer-should-notify-of-removing-main I've made progress with this, and encountered a couple blockers along the way (one outstanding at this time). Currently the need for Jedi 0.18 means the work in git (Elpy 1.35 minus rope, plus cherrypicked support for Jedi refactoring) cannot yet be uploaded. One nice thing about all this: it was good to have a high priority practice reason to enhance Elpy's packaging and test output for more complete and useful debugging output. Regards, Nicholas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#975535: elpy's autopkg tests fail with Python 3.9
Package: src:elpy Version: 1.34.0-2 Severity: serious Tags: sid bullseye User: debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org Usertags: python3.9 https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/amd64/e/elpy/8349971/log.gz [...] Ran 436 tests, 432 results as expected, 3 unexpected, 1 skipped (2020-11-22 10:13:43+, 71.268224 sec) 3 unexpected results: FAILED elpy-company-backend-should-add-shell-candidates FAILED elpy-fold-at-point-should-fold-and-unfold-comments FAILED elpy-pdb-debug-buffer-should-ignore-breakpoints 1 skipped results: SKIPPED elpy-shell-send-region-or-buffer-should-notify-of-removing-main
