Skip to content

fix(release): install deps before building python and skip npm build #64

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 29, 2025
Merged

fix(release): install deps before building python and skip npm build #64

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 29, 2025

Conversation

@saltenasl
Copy link
Member

@saltenasl saltenasl commented Oct 29, 2025 •
edited by coderabbitai bot
Loading

The current problem in our release process is that we don't need to publish to npm. If npm build is disabled (which effectively disables publish) - the before-build-python fails due jlpm not being available. We therefore:

  1. move pip install jupyterlab as well as jlpm build to before-build-python
  2. codify the skipping of build-npm

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Chores
    • Updated release build configuration to enhance the build process with additional cleanup steps, improving consistency in the release pipeline.

@saltenasl saltenasl requested a review from a team as a code owner October 29, 2025 09:05
@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 29, 2025 •
edited
Loading

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The pyproject.toml file now includes a [tool.jupyter-releaser] configuration block that skips the build-npm step and sets the version command to hatch version. A new [tool.jupyter-releaser.hooks] section redefines build hooks, replacing before-build-npm with before-build-python and appending jlpm clean:all to the command sequence after jlpm build:prod. This adjusts the pre-release build sequence by introducing a cleanup phase while maintaining existing Python preparation commands.

Pre-merge checks

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Docstring Coverage ⚠️ Warning Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. You can run @coderabbitai generate docstrings to improve docstring coverage.
✅ Passed checks (2 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title Check ✅ Passed The title accurately captures the two primary changes: skipping the npm build via the new skip = ["build-npm"] configuration, and reorganizing the build process to install dependencies (pip install jupyterlab) before building Python by moving them into the before-build-python hook. The title is clear, specific, and concise—someone scanning history would immediately understand the core fix. It directly addresses the PR objective of resolving a release-process failure when npm build is disabled.
📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Disabled knowledge base sources:

  • Linear integration is disabled by default for public repositories

You can enable these sources in your CodeRabbit configuration.

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 19a6897 and 9e193ac.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • pyproject.toml (1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)
  • GitHub Check: check_release
  • GitHub Check: build
🔇 Additional comments (1)
pyproject.toml (1)

76-88: Verify the bare jlpm command and hook semantics.

The configuration skips build-npm and moves npm operations into the before-build-python hook, which aligns with the PR objective. However:

  1. Line 85: The bare jlpm command is unusual. Verify this is intentional and won't fail—typically jlpm requires a subcommand (e.g., jlpm install).
  2. Semantic concern: Running npm commands in a before-build-python hook is counterintuitive, though it may be idiomatic for jupyter-releaser.

To verify the configuration, please confirm:

  • The bare jlpm command on line 85 is intentional (for initialization, environment setup, or dependency checking).
  • This hook ordering works correctly with your jupyter-releaser workflow.

Alternatively, check the jupyter-releaser documentation or test this release configuration locally to ensure the hooks execute successfully and produce the expected build artifacts.

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 29, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 69.56%. Comparing base (19a6897) to head (9e193ac).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #64   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   69.56%   69.56%           
=======================================
  Files          13       13           
  Lines         253      253           
  Branches       28       28           
=======================================
  Hits          176      176           
  Misses         73       73           
  Partials        4        4

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@saltenasl saltenasl merged commit c4bfd87 into main Oct 29, 2025
14 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@Artmann Artmann Artmann approved these changes

@dinohamzic dinohamzic dinohamzic approved these changes

@coderabbitai coderabbitai[bot] coderabbitai[bot] approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@saltenasl @Artmann @dinohamzic