Skip to content

Add nodask constraint for test-py313-no-dask environment#11385

Draft
weiji14 wants to merge 2 commits into
pydata:mainfrom
weiji14:env/nodask
Draft

Add nodask constraint for test-py313-no-dask environment#11385
weiji14 wants to merge 2 commits into
pydata:mainfrom
weiji14:env/nodask

Conversation

@weiji14

@weiji14 weiji14 commented Jun 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description

Explicitly exclude dask-core from being installed. Discovered that some dask-dependent tests were being ran in the no-dask environment in PR #11383.

Reference: https://pixi.prefix.dev/latest/reference/pixi_manifest/#constraints

Checklist

AI Disclosure

Comment thread pixi.toml
cftime = "*"

# other
iris = "*"

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Removed iris from feature.extras.dependencies because it depends on dask, and was polluting the test-py313-no-dask environment.

Error:   × failed to solve requirements of environment 'test-py313-no-dask' for platform 'win-64'
  ├─▶   × failed to solve the environment

  ╰─▶ Cannot solve the request because of: iris * cannot be installed because there are no viable options:
      ├─ iris 2.4.0 | 2.4.0 | 2.4.0 | 2.4.0 | 3.0.0 | 3.0.0 | 3.0.0 | 3.0.0 | 3.0.1 | 3.0.1 | 3.0.1 | 3.0.1 | 3.0.1 | 3.0.1 | 3.0.1 | 3.0.1 | 3.0.2 | 3.0.2 | 3.0.2 | 3.0.2 | 3.0.2 | 3.0.2 | 3.0.2 | 3.0.2 | 3.0.2 | 3.0.2 | 3.0.2 | 3.0.2 | 3.0.3 | 3.0.3 | 3.0.3 | 3.0.3 | 3.0.4 | 3.0.4 | 3.0.4 | 3.1.0 | 3.1.0 | 3.1.0 | 3.1.0 | 3.1.0 | 3.1.0 | 3.1.0 would require
      │  └─ dask >=2, which cannot be installed because there are no viable options:
      │     └─ dask 2.0.0 | 2.1.0 | 2.2.0 | 2.3.0 | 2.4.0 | 2.5.0 | 2.5.2 | 2.6.0 | 2.7.0 | 2.8.0 | 2.8.1 | 2.9.0 | 2.9.1 | 2.9.2 | 2.10.0 | 2.10.1 | 2.11.0 | 2.12.0 | 2.13.0 | 2.14.0 | 2.15.0 | 2.16.0 | 2.17.0 | 2.17.1 | 2.17.2 | 2.18.0 | 2.18.1 | 2.19.0 | 2.20.0 | 2.21.0 | 2.22.0 | 2.23.0 | 2.24.0 | 2.25.0 | 2.26.0 | 2.27.0 | 2.28.0 | 2.29.0 | 2.30.0 | 2020.12.0 | 2021.1.0 | 2021.1.1 | 2021.2.0 | 2021.3.0 | 2021.3.1 | 2021.4.0 | 2021.4.1 | 2021.5.0 | 2021.5.1 | 2021.6.0 | 2021.6.1 | 2021.6.2 | 2021.7.0 | 2021.7.1 | 2021.7.2 | 2021.8.0 | 2021.8.1 | 2021.9.0 | 2021.9.1 | 2021.10.0 | 2021.11.0 | 2021.11.1 | 2021.11.2 | 2021.12.0 | 2022.1.0 | 2022.1.1 | 2022.2.0 | 2022.2.1 | 2022.3.0 | 2022.3.0 | 2022.4.0 | 2022.4.1 | 2022.4.2 | 2022.5.0 | 2022.5.1 | 2022.5.2 | 2022.6.0 | 2022.6.1 | 2022.7.0 | 2022.7.1 | 2022.8.0 | 2022.8.0 | 2022.8.0 | 2022.8.1 | 2022.9.0 | 2022.9.1 | 2022.9.2 | 2022.10.0 | 2022.10.0 | 2022.10.0 | 2022.10.2 | 2022.11.0 | 2022.11.1 | 2022.12.0 | 2022.12.1 | 2023.1.0 | 2023.1.1 | 2023.2.0 | 2023.2.1 | 2023.3.0 | 2023.3.1 | 2023.3.2 | 2023.4.0 | 2023.4.1 | 2023.5.0 | 2023.5.1 | 2023.6.0 | 2023.6.1 | 2023.7.0 | 2023.7.1 | 2023.8.0 | 2023.8.1 | 2023.9.0 | 2023.9.1 | 2023.9.2 | 2023.9.3 | 2023.10.0 | 2023.10.1 | 2023.11.0 | 2023.12.0 | 2023.12.1 | 2024.1.0 | 2024.1.1 | 2024.2.0 | 2024.2.1 | 2024.3.0 | 2024.3.0 | 2024.3.1 | 2024.4.0 | 2024.4.1 | 2024.4.2 | 2024.5.0 | 2024.5.1 | 2024.5.2 | 2024.6.0 | 2024.6.2 | 2024.7.0 | 2024.7.1 | 2024.8.0 | 2024.8.1 | 2024.8.2 | 2024.9.0 | 2024.9.1 | 2024.10.0 | 2024.11.0 | 2024.11.1 | 2024.11.2 | 2024.11.2 | 2024.12.0 | 2024.12.1 | 2025.1.0 | 2025.2.0 | 2025.3.0 | 2025.3.1 | 2025.4.0 | 2025.4.1 | 2025.5.0 | 2025.5.1 | 2025.5.1 | 2025.7.0 | 2025.9.0 | 2025.9.1 | 2025.9.2 | 2025.10.0 | 2025.11.0 | 2025.12.0 | 2026.1.1 | 2026.1.2 | 2026.1.2 | 2026.3.0 | 2026.6.0 would require
      │        └─ dask-core 2.0.0.*, for which no candidates were found.

This might reduce test coverage on iris-dependent tests though, so someone should verify if this makes sense.

Comment thread pixi.toml
Comment on lines 391 to 392
test-py313-no-dask = { features = [
"py312",

@weiji14 weiji14 Jun 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this be renamed to test-py312-..., or should the py312 feature be py313 instead? Maybe doesn't matter if #11377 goes ahead.

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 this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant