Debian Bug report logs - #975535
elpy's autopkg tests fail with Python 3.9

Display info messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: elpy's autopkg tests fail with Python 3.9

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 11:21:29 +0100

Package: src:elpy
Version: 1.34.0-2
Severity: serious
Tags: sid bullseye
User: debian-python@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+0000, 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

Message #20 received at 975535@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com>

To: Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>, 975535@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#975535: elpy's autopkg tests fail with Python 3.9

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 20:57:49 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

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-python@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+0000, 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 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #27 received at 975535@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org>

To: Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com>, 975535@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#975535: elpy's autopkg tests fail with Python 3.9

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 07:44:35 +0200

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

Message #32 received at 975535@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com>

To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org>, 975535@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#975535: elpy's autopkg tests fail with Python 3.9

Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2021 22:09:03 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

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 <bunk@debian.org> 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 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #37 received at 975535@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org>

To: Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com>

Cc: 975535@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#975535: elpy's autopkg tests fail with Python 3.9

Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2021 09:50:50 +0200

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

Message #42 received at 975535@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com>

To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org>

Cc: 975535@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#975535: elpy's autopkg tests fail with Python 3.9

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:28:14 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Adrian,

Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> 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 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #51 received at 975535-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>

To: 940660-done@bugs.debian.org,941044-done@bugs.debian.org,975535-done@bugs.debian.org,

Cc: elpy@packages.debian.org

Subject: Bug#1000550: Removed package(s) from unstable

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 18:26:22 +0000

Version: 1.34.0-2+rm

Dear submitter,

as the package elpy has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see https://bugs.debian.org/1000550

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.

Please note that the changes have been done on the master archive and
will not propagate to any mirrors until the next dinstall run at the
earliest.

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Scott Kitterman (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.