chore(deps): adopt views-frames 2.0.0 — the upstream blocker lifted today (#286) - #306
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…oday (#286) views-pipeline-core 3.3.0 reached PyPI on 2026-09-19 with views-frames ">=1.10.2,<3.0.0" (their #488). Every earlier release pinned <2.0.0, which made `poetry lock` refuse this move outright; our own <2 pin was the last thing in the way. pyproject: views-frames ">=1.10.2,<2" -> ">=2.0.0,<3". The re-lock moved six packages and nothing else: views-frames 1.10.2 -> 2.0.0 the goal views-pipeline-core 3.0.1 -> 3.3.0 our range already allowed it views-evaluation 1.0.0 -> 2.0.0 pulled by pipeline-core 3.3.0 stepshift, views-transformation-library, xarray — transitive pyarrow 16.1.0 -> 16.1.0 UNMOVED: the ADR-013 §10 byte-parity fixtures are pinned to it (C-72) levenshtein 0.20.9 -> 0.20.9 UNMOVED: the cp311-only ceiling (C-104) Pre-flight was done on 2026-08-18 and holds: no in-place `.values` mutation (the one migration row that can break working code), no CONFORMANCE_FLOOR assertion, no call to assert_summarizer_contract. The byte question was measured on 2026-08-21: shards emitted through views_frames.io.arrow hash identically under 1.10.2 and 2.0.0 at the pinned toolchain, equal to the committed fixture. This is a re-lock, not a fixture re-vendor. Also picks up views-frames 1.11.0's fix to the MAP-containment law, which was wrong on tied draws — ~6% of rows on zero-inflated count posteriors, this platform's primary data shape (their C-88). This repo volunteered to take that first. views-evaluation 2.0.0's [frames] extra still caps views-frames <2 (views-evaluation#91). Not in our resolve: pipeline-core 3.3.0 requests views-evaluation without that extra, and this repo does not depend on views-evaluation or views-reporting directly. Checked against the lock. Verified in CI, not locally: the developer machine holds no interpreter that can install this lockfile (C-104), so the 3.11 CI job is the first execution of the locked environment. That is why this is a PR and not a push. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01ANY1CCy9Xo7zjMY4XJ69v9
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #286.
views-pipeline-core 3.3.0 reached PyPI today with
views-frames <3.0.0. Every earlier release pinned<2.0.0, which madepoetry lockrefuse this move. Our own<2pin was the last thing in the way.What moved — six packages
What did not move — and had to not
Pre-flight (2026-08-18) still holds
No in-place
.valuesmutation — the one migration row that can break working code. NoCONFORMANCE_FLOORassertion. No call toassert_summarizer_contract. And the byte question was measured on 2026-08-21: shards hash identically under 1.10.2 and 2.0.0 at the pinned toolchain. A re-lock, not a fixture re-vendor.Also picks up frames 1.11.0's fix to the MAP-containment law on tied draws (~6% of rows on this platform's primary data shape) — this repo volunteered to take that first.
The views-evaluation caveat
Its 2.0.0
[frames]extra still caps views-frames<2. Not in our resolve — pipeline-core 3.3.0 requests views-evaluation without that extra, and we depend on neither views-evaluation nor views-reporting directly. Checked against the lock.Verification is CI, not local
The developer machine has no interpreter that can install this lockfile (C-104). The 3.11
testjob is the first execution of the locked environment — which is exactly why this is a PR and not a push. If byte-parity or the 61 frames-dependent tests go red, the PR does not merge.🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_01ANY1CCy9Xo7zjMY4XJ69v9