Update unit testing to use UV over micromamba for environment management

[jtsiddons]

See https://docs.astral.sh/uv/guides/integration/github/

[github-actions]

Warning

This Pull Request modifies GitHub Workflows and is coming from a fork.
It is very important for the reviewer to ensure that the workflow changes are appropriate.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 84.23%. Comparing base (87403d8) to head (286f27d).
Report is 22 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #228   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   84.23%   84.23%           
=======================================
  Files          76       76           
  Lines        2817     2817           
=======================================
  Hits         2373     2373           
  Misses        444      444           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	84.23% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[github-actions]

Warning

This Pull Request modifies GitHub Workflows and is coming from a fork.
It is very important for the reviewer to ensure that the workflow changes are appropriate.

[ludwiglierhammer]

Once you have the unit tests running, I would implement a new Github action that tests if the environment creation works with both pip and conda for different Python versions.

[ludwiglierhammer]

py3.9 has failed due to connection problems:
http.client.RemoteDisconnected: Remote end closed connection without response

In general, the tests are passing 🎉

[jtsiddons]

@ludwiglierhammer

Once you have the unit tests running, I would implement a new Github action that tests if the environment creation works with both pip and conda for different Python versions.

Sure, are you thinking a check similar to

pip install .
python -c "import cdm_reader_mapper"

And similar for conda?

[ludwiglierhammer]

@ludwiglierhammer

Once you have the unit tests running, I would implement a new Github action that tests if the environment creation works with both pip and conda for different Python versions.

Sure, are you thinking a check similar to

pip install .
python -c "import cdm_reader_mapper"

And similar for conda?

Yes, I would create a new yaml file in .github/workflows.

[github-actions]

Warning

This Pull Request modifies GitHub Workflows and is coming from a fork.
It is very important for the reviewer to ensure that the workflow changes are appropriate.

[jtsiddons]

@ludwiglierhammer

Once you have the unit tests running, I would implement a new Github action that tests if the environment creation works with both pip and conda for different Python versions.

Sure, are you thinking a check similar to

pip install .
python -c "import cdm_reader_mapper"

And similar for conda?

Yes, I would create a new yaml file in .github/workflows.

I've added a workflow for installation check via pip for py3.11.

It creates a conda envrionment with no dependencies (other than the python version). It then installs the library with pip install .

See https://github.com/glamod/cdm_reader_mapper/actions/runs/13367474700/job/37328361995?pr=228

Thoughts/suggestions?

[ludwiglierhammer]

I did a new PR (#229) regarding exactly this issue. Looks similar to your install.yml.

[ludwiglierhammer]

I did a new PR (#229) regarding exactly this issue. Looks similar to your install.yml.

Unfortunately, it is not running at the moment.

[ludwiglierhammer]

@jtsiddons: I updated some dependencies in PR #229 and did some renamings:

• .github/workflows/ci.yml -> .github/workflows/testing-suite.yml
• ci/requirements -> CI

Since cdm_reader_mapper is not deployed to conda, we do not need a environment creation checker, I think.

[github-actions]

Warning

This Pull Request modifies GitHub Workflows and is coming from a fork.
It is very important for the reviewer to ensure that the workflow changes are appropriate.

[github-actions]

Warning

This Pull Request modifies GitHub Workflows and is coming from a fork.
It is very important for the reviewer to ensure that the workflow changes are appropriate.

[jtsiddons]

@ludwiglierhammer: Did the tests change or did I merge main incorrectly?

[github-actions]

Warning

This Pull Request modifies GitHub Workflows and is coming from a fork.
It is very important for the reviewer to ensure that the workflow changes are appropriate.

[ludwiglierhammer]

@ludwiglierhammer: Did the tests change or did I merge main incorrectly?

Sorry, my bad. I fixed this.

[jtsiddons]

Do we want to add any additional workflows?

I can't think of any. I have no further workflows in my mind.
I usuallly get ideas for workflows from xclim.

Do you have any specific ideas?

[github-actions]

Warning

This Pull Request modifies GitHub Workflows and is coming from a fork.
It is very important for the reviewer to ensure that the workflow changes are appropriate.

[jtsiddons]

Do we want to add any additional workflows?

I can't think of any. I have no further workflows in my mind. I usuallly get ideas for workflows from xclim.

Do you have any specific ideas?

Not immediately. I can mark this as ready for review if you're happy.

Looks good to me 👍

[github-actions]

Warning

This Pull Request modifies GitHub Workflows and is coming from a fork.
It is very important for the reviewer to ensure that the workflow changes are appropriate.

[github-actions]

Warning

This Pull Request modifies GitHub Workflows and is coming from a fork.
It is very important for the reviewer to ensure that the workflow changes are appropriate.

[github-actions]

Warning
This Pull Request is coming from a fork and must be manually tagged approved
in order to perform additional testing.

[jtsiddons]

Do you want me to update changes.rst?

Yes, gladly. I thought of somethign like this:

Announcements
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This release adds support for Python 3.13 (:pull:228)

[jtsiddons]

Does this want to be under a new (unreleased) section? Should I add the change in CI
environment mangement to the internal changes sub-section?

I would call the new release 2.0.1 since it it just a minor revision for the users.
I would be happy if you could add the CI changes. I forgot yesterday to add them yesterday.

E.g:

2.0.1 (unreleased)
------------------
Contributors to this version: Ludwig Lierhammer (:user:`ludwiglierhammer`) and Joseph Siddons (:user:`jtsiddons`)

Announcements
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This release drops support for Python 3.9 and adds support for Python 3.13 (:pull:`228`, :pull:`229`)

New features and enhancements
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
* add environment.yml file (:pull:`229`)

Internal changes
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
* GitHub workflow for ``testing_suite`` now uses ``uv`` for environment management, replacing ``micromamba`` (:pull:`228`)
* rename ci/requirements to CI and tidy up requirements/dependencies (:pull:`229`)

edits: add example and pull ref

[github-actions]

Warning

This Pull Request modifies GitHub Workflows and is coming from a fork.
It is very important for the reviewer to ensure that the workflow changes are appropriate.

[github-actions]

Warning

This Pull Request modifies GitHub Workflows and is coming from a fork.
It is very important for the reviewer to ensure that the workflow changes are appropriate.

[ludwiglierhammer]

Looks good to me. Thanks for your work. Anything to add from your side? Can I merge this PR?

[jtsiddons]

Looks ood to me. Thanks for your work. Anything to add from your side? Can I merge this PR?

I think so. I can't think of anything to add immediately.