Skip to content
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

Introduce minimum augur version check #1070

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jameshadfield
Copy link
Member

I implemented this as part of updating #1000, but there are so many ways this pipeline may be run (and which I don't have experience with) that it's not appropriate for that PR. The downside of false-positives outweighs the benefits, so any version check has to be sure we are using the augur version we think we are - probably more so than in the code's current form. It would be worth it to catch these incompatibilities early as I'm sure this'll trip up some people.

Note that this PR failed CI in a useful way :)

Your version of augur (21.1.0) needs to be upgraded to use this workflow.
The minimum augur version required is 22.0.0.

This is complicated by the various different ways the workflow can be
run. Running with `--use-conda` means conda won't necessarily be
available (and if it is it's not the correct version to check), and
there may be other scenarios.
logger.error(textwrap.dedent(
f"\nYour version of augur ({augur_version.__version__}) needs to be upgraded to use this workflow." +
f"\nThe minimum augur version required is {minumim_supported_augur_version}." +
"\nPlease see https://docs.nextstrain.org/en/latest/guides/manage-installation.html for help with updating your installation." +
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We could add "If you think this version check is not applicable for how you are running this workflow, you may remove it by setting config['skip_augur_version_check'] = true" here if we are worried (like I am) about not wanting to completely disable some rare (?) invocations of the workflow.

@huddlej
Copy link
Contributor

huddlej commented May 16, 2023

There is an ancient (2-year-old now) PR that does something similar but only when the workflow errors. Checking preemptively seems maybe better, though.

@victorlin
Copy link
Member

Noting that this is analagous to nextstrain/mpox@d9f6d47.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
No open projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants