Skip to content

Dev/eglaser downgrade cython #2501

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Draft
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ethanglaser
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Add a comprehensive description of proposed changes

List associated issue number(s) if exist(s): #6 (for example)

Documentation PR (if needed): #1340 (for example)

Benchmarks PR (if needed): IntelPython/scikit-learn_bench#155 (for example)


PR should start as a draft, then move to ready for review state after CI is passed and all applicable checkboxes are closed.
This approach ensures that reviewers don't spend extra time asking for regular requirements.

You can remove a checkbox as not applicable only if it doesn't relate to this PR in any way.
For example, PR with docs update doesn't require checkboxes for performance while PR with any change in actual code should have checkboxes and justify how this code change is expected to affect performance (or justification should be self-evident).

Checklist to comply with before moving PR from draft:

PR completeness and readability

  • I have reviewed my changes thoroughly before submitting this pull request.
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
  • I have updated the documentation to reflect the changes or created a separate PR with update and provided its number in the description, if necessary.
  • Git commit message contains an appropriate signed-off-by string (see CONTRIBUTING.md for details).
  • I have added a respective label(s) to PR if I have a permission for that.
  • I have resolved any merge conflicts that might occur with the base branch.

Testing

  • I have run it locally and tested the changes extensively.
  • All CI jobs are green or I have provided justification why they aren't.
  • I have extended testing suite if new functionality was introduced in this PR.

Performance

  • I have measured performance for affected algorithms using scikit-learn_bench and provided at least summary table with measured data, if performance change is expected.
  • I have provided justification why performance has changed or why changes are not expected.
  • I have provided justification why quality metrics have changed or why changes are not expected.
  • I have extended benchmarking suite and provided corresponding scikit-learn_bench PR if new measurable functionality was introduced in this PR.

Copy link

codecov bot commented May 30, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Flag Coverage Δ
azure 79.87% <ø> (ø)
github 71.62% <ø> (?)

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

see 44 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@icfaust
Copy link
Contributor

icfaust commented May 31, 2025

I am so puzzled to how the Cython version impacts that test failure

@david-cortes-intel
Copy link
Contributor

@ethanglaser Are you able to isolate the test that is failing?

Perhaps this might be an actual bug on the sklearnex. This cython release included bug fixes around type inference with conflicting types, for example:
https://docs.cython.org/en/latest/src/changes.html#id4

@ethanglaser
Copy link
Contributor Author

Is this still relevant? Looks like we have green public CI

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.

3 participants