Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on May 14, 2024. It is now read-only.

Python Requirements Update #273

Closed

Conversation

edx-requirements-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Python requirements update. Please review the changelogs for the upgraded packages.

@edx-requirements-bot
Copy link
Contributor Author

List of packages in the PR without any issue.

  • boto3 changes from 1.28.3 to 1.28.9
  • botocore changes from 1.31.3 to 1.31.9
  • certifi changes from 2023.5.7 to 2023.7.22
  • click changes from 8.1.5 to 8.1.6
  • code-annotations changes from 1.3.0 to 1.5.0
  • dill changes from 0.3.6 to 0.3.7
  • drf-yasg changes from 1.21.6 to 1.21.7
  • edx-api-doc-tools changes from 1.6.0 to 1.7.0
  • factory-boy changes from 3.2.1 to 3.3.0
  • faker changes from 19.1.0 to 19.2.0
  • pip changes from 23.2 to 23.2.1
  • pip-tools changes from 7.0.0 to 7.1.0
  • pyjwt[crypto] changes from 2.7.0 to 2.8.0
  • pyyaml changes from 6.0 to 6.0.1
  • wheel changes from 0.40.0 to 0.41.0

@edx-requirements-bot
Copy link
Contributor Author

These Packages need manual review..

  • [MAJOR] gunicorn changes from 20.1.0 to 21.2.0

…ssing microseconds

Gave a test failure on CI with the string '2023-07-24T00:24:05+00:00'
@bradenmacdonald
Copy link
Contributor

@Agrendalath I added a commit here to fix a test failure. I think it was unrelated to the upgrades, and just caused by the time that the test happened to run at, but I'm not sure. In any case the fix should be good :) Please review and merge at your leisure.

@edx-requirements-bot
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing obsolete PR.

@edx-requirements-bot edx-requirements-bot deleted the jenkins/upgrade-python-requirements-0f3eb9c branch July 31, 2023 00:35
@Agrendalath
Copy link
Contributor

@bradenmacdonald, sorry, I just got to this. As #275 passed, it seems that this was just a random test failure.

Your fix looks good to me, but it modifies the code outside of the requirements, so I believe it is worth adding it to a separate PR with a patch bump and an entry in the changelog. What do you think?

@bradenmacdonald
Copy link
Contributor

Your fix looks good to me, but it modifies the code outside of the requirements, so I believe it is worth adding it to a separate PR with a patch bump and an entry in the changelog. What do you think?

@Agrendalath done! Could you please review? #279
I included a changelog entry but didn't bother with a version bump for now.

@Agrendalath
Copy link
Contributor

@bradenmacdonald, looks good, thanks! Reviewed and merged.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants