Fix release builds#2629
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Dreamsorcerer
requested review from
leshy,
mustafab0,
paul-nechifor and
spomichter
as code owners
Contributor
Greptile SummaryThis PR fixes the release build pipeline by removing the deprecated
Confidence Score: 4/5The workflow and dependency removals are correct; the replacement annotation-compliance code is well-structured and tested, but the typing_extensions version floor in pyproject.toml is lower than what the new imports actually require. The new annotation checker imports get_protocol_members and is_protocol from typing_extensions, both of which were added in 4.7.0, but the declared dependency floor is >=4.0. On Python 3.10 in a clean environment where pip resolves the oldest satisfying version, this will produce an ImportError at runtime. The change otherwise looks solid — manylinux images are correct for both arches, the KeyError guard on defaulted spec parameters is in place, and the new helper logic is covered by targeted tests. pyproject.toml — the typing_extensions version specifier needs attention to match what the new imports actually require. Important Files Changed
Flowchart%%{init: {'theme': 'neutral'}}%%
flowchart TD
A["spec_annotation_compliance(obj, proto)"] --> B{"is_spec(proto)?"}
B -->|No| C["raise TypeError"]
B -->|Yes| D{"isinstance(obj, runtime_checkable(proto))?"}
D -->|No| E["return False"]
D -->|Yes| F["For each name in get_protocol_members(proto)"]
F --> G{"spec_sig obtainable?"}
G -->|No| H["skip - data attribute"]
H --> F
G -->|Yes| I{"impl_sig obtainable?"}
I -->|No| E
I -->|Yes| J["_signatures_compatible(spec_sig, impl_sig)"]
J --> K{"return annotations compatible?"}
K -->|No| E
K -->|Yes| L["Build args/kwargs from impl params\nskip extra optional params not in spec"]
L --> M{"spec_sig.bind succeeds?"}
M -->|No| E
M -->|Yes| N["For each spec_param"]
N --> O{"VAR_POSITIONAL or VAR_KEYWORD?"}
O -->|Yes| P["skip"]
P --> T
O -->|No| Q{"param name in bound.arguments?"}
Q -->|No| E
Q -->|Yes| R{"name and kind compatible?"}
R -->|No| E
R -->|Yes| S{"_annotation_compatible?"}
S -->|No| E
S -->|Yes| T{"more params?"}
T -->|Yes| N
T -->|No| U["return True"]
U --> F
%%{init: {'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': {"darkMode": true, "background": "#0d1117", "primaryColor": "#21262d", "primaryTextColor": "#e6edf3", "primaryBorderColor": "#8b949e", "lineColor": "#8b949e", "textColor": "#e6edf3", "edgeLabelBackground": "#161b22", "actorBkg": "#21262d", "actorBorder": "#8b949e", "actorTextColor": "#e6edf3", "actorLineColor": "#8b949e", "signalColor": "#8b949e", "signalTextColor": "#e6edf3", "noteBkgColor": "#373320", "noteBorderColor": "#d4a72c", "noteTextColor": "#f0e6c0", "labelBoxBkgColor": "#21262d", "labelBoxBorderColor": "#8b949e", "labelTextColor": "#e6edf3", "loopTextColor": "#e6edf3", "activationBkgColor": "#30363d", "activationBorderColor": "#8b949e"}}}%%
flowchart TD
A["spec_annotation_compliance(obj, proto)"] --> B{"is_spec(proto)?"}
B -->|No| C["raise TypeError"]
B -->|Yes| D{"isinstance(obj, runtime_checkable(proto))?"}
D -->|No| E["return False"]
D -->|Yes| F["For each name in get_protocol_members(proto)"]
F --> G{"spec_sig obtainable?"}
G -->|No| H["skip - data attribute"]
H --> F
G -->|Yes| I{"impl_sig obtainable?"}
I -->|No| E
I -->|Yes| J["_signatures_compatible(spec_sig, impl_sig)"]
J --> K{"return annotations compatible?"}
K -->|No| E
K -->|Yes| L["Build args/kwargs from impl params\nskip extra optional params not in spec"]
L --> M{"spec_sig.bind succeeds?"}
M -->|No| E
M -->|Yes| N["For each spec_param"]
N --> O{"VAR_POSITIONAL or VAR_KEYWORD?"}
O -->|Yes| P["skip"]
P --> T
O -->|No| Q{"param name in bound.arguments?"}
Q -->|No| E
Q -->|Yes| R{"name and kind compatible?"}
R -->|No| E
R -->|Yes| S{"_annotation_compatible?"}
S -->|No| E
S -->|Yes| T{"more params?"}
T -->|Yes| N
T -->|No| U["return True"]
U --> F
Reviews (3): Last reviewed commit: "Fix" | Re-trigger Greptile |
![greptile-apps[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/867647?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2629 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 71.04% 71.01% -0.04%
==========================================
Files 892 892
Lines 79287 79371 +84
Branches 7079 7100 +21
==========================================
+ Hits 56330 56362 +32
- Misses 21114 21156 +42
- Partials 1843 1853 +10
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
... and 5 files with indirect coverage changes 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
github-actions
Bot
added
the
ready-to-merge
paul-nechifor
approved these changes
Jun 26, 2026
|
Backport branch created but failed to create PR. (see action log for full response) |
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
2 participants
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.
Someone more familiar with the reason for using annotation-protocol should probably review and simplify these changes later, I doubt we need this much complexity for the one check (maybe a pydantic check would be enough?).