On 19/10/2020 20:07, Stefano Rivera wrote:
Hi Rebecca (2020.10.19_11:51:33_-0700)
Or maybe not an actual regression...it's a ~5e-7 difference and one of the
things the patch does (at around dask/dataframe/tests/test_rolling.py:270)
is _tighten_ the tolerance on that test.
Hrm, I didn't see th
Or maybe not an actual regression...it's a ~5e-7 difference and one of
the things the patch does (at around
dask/dataframe/tests/test_rolling.py:270) is _tighten_ the tolerance on
that test.
I have filed a separate bug (#972516) for the fsspec issues.
I have now tested it. (The dask tests are run in autopkgtest, not build.)
The attached is what I have so far, but it had these failures. The
first two happen with or without 969648.patch and (from debci results)
appear to be triggered by the new fsspec, but the last is a *regression*
caused
Hi Rebecca (2020.10.19_12:07:08_-0700)
> > Or maybe not an actual regression...it's a ~5e-7 difference and one of the
> > things the patch does (at around dask/dataframe/tests/test_rolling.py:270)
> > is _tighten_ the tolerance on that test.
>
> Hrm, I didn't see that failure. Testing again on a 3
Hi Rebecca (2020.10.19_11:26:19_-0700)
> I have now tested it. (The dask tests are run in autopkgtest, not build.)
Thanks. I took your untested patch and tested it, too.
It needed some tweaking, which it looks like you've also done.
> The attached is what I have so far, but it had these failur
Hi Rebecca (2020.10.19_11:51:33_-0700)
> Or maybe not an actual regression...it's a ~5e-7 difference and one of the
> things the patch does (at around dask/dataframe/tests/test_rolling.py:270)
> is _tighten_ the tolerance on that test.
Hrm, I didn't see that failure. Testing again on a 32bit arch
The upstream patch doesn't even apply as-is; this version does, but I
don't have time right now to actually test it.
There's also a circular dependency problem, as dask indirectly
build-depends on itself and my new pandas makes it uninstallable.
Description: pandas 1.1 compatibility
Origin:
7 matches
Mail list logo
