PR Summary
Due to a number of issues with the 3.0.x releases of pyparsing having issues,
we are going to for mpl3.5.0 limit to the 2.x series of pyparsing. There is
ongoing work on both the Matplotlib and pyparsing sides and we anticipate that
we will be able to lift this constraint in the next patch release.
Due to one of our dependencies (packaging) also having issues with pyparsing and pinning it back to <3 we have been lulled into a false sense of security about if the v3.5.x branch is passing using pyparsing3 because it was actually testing with pyparsing 2.4.7. Locally I see that on the v3.5.x branch we have:
| pyparsing version | v3.5.x | with Antony Patch |
|---|
| 3.0.0 | ✅ | ✅ |
| 3.0.1 | ✅ | ✅ |
| 3.0.2 | ❌ | ✅ |
| 3.0.3 | ❌ | ✅ |
| 3.0.4 | ❌ | ✅ |
| 3.0.5 | ❌ | ✅ |
The tests that fail are all of a dot moving from above a letter to in front of it. If I cherry-pick the commit from#21501 (ec497ae) back to v3.5.x the tests pass. However, given the discussion with@anntzer and@ptmcg I'm not sure if that that fix is "right" or not. From#21501 (comment)
Ok. There is a bug in pyparsing, but fixing it doesn't completely solve your problem.
I do not expect a future version of pyparsing to fix it for us so we will need some additional changes on our side
For mpl3.5.0 we need to merge either this PR or#21501. On one hand, merging this PR is "safe" in that we are pretty confident that it won't break our users and buys more time to figure out what the right fix on our side is and in 3.5.1 we can exclude any version of pyparsing we do not want to / can not support (due to known bugs or performance versions). On the other hand, if we merge#21501 we do not have to do any fancy pinning on pyparsing and if the solution there is not ideal we can fix it up in a patch release.
On balance, I think that merging#21501 and closing this PR is the right path forward.
===================================================================================================================================== short test summary info ======================================================================================================================================FAILED lib/matplotlib/tests/test_mathtext.py::test_mathtext_rendering[png-mathtext-cm-0] - matplotlib.testing.exceptions.ImageComparisonFailure: images not close (RMS 2.308):FAILED lib/matplotlib/tests/test_mathtext.py::test_mathtext_rendering[png-mathtext-stix-0] - matplotlib.testing.exceptions.ImageComparisonFailure: images not close (RMS 16.782):FAILED lib/matplotlib/tests/test_mathtext.py::test_mathtext_rendering[png-mathtext-stixsans-0] - matplotlib.testing.exceptions.ImageComparisonFailure: images not close (RMS 17.033):FAILED lib/matplotlib/tests/test_mathtext.py::test_mathtext_rendering[png-mathtext-dejavusans-0] - matplotlib.testing.exceptions.ImageComparisonFailure: images not close (RMS 20.620):FAILED lib/matplotlib/tests/test_mathtext.py::test_mathtext_rendering[png-mathtext-dejavuserif-0] - matplotlib.testing.exceptions.ImageComparisonFailure: images not close (RMS 20.436):FAILED lib/matplotlib/tests/test_mathtext.py::test_mathtext_rendering[pdf-mathtext-cm-0] - matplotlib.testing.exceptions.ImageComparisonFailure: images not close (RMS 5.354):FAILED lib/matplotlib/tests/test_mathtext.py::test_mathtext_rendering[pdf-mathtext-stix-0] - matplotlib.testing.exceptions.ImageComparisonFailure: images not close (RMS 27.009):FAILED lib/matplotlib/tests/test_mathtext.py::test_mathtext_rendering[pdf-mathtext-stixsans-0] - matplotlib.testing.exceptions.ImageComparisonFailure: images not close (RMS 26.110):FAILED lib/matplotlib/tests/test_mathtext.py::test_mathtext_rendering[pdf-mathtext-dejavusans-0] - matplotlib.testing.exceptions.ImageComparisonFailure: images not close (RMS 31.526):FAILED lib/matplotlib/tests/test_mathtext.py::test_mathtext_rendering[pdf-mathtext-dejavuserif-0] - matplotlib.testing.exceptions.ImageComparisonFailure: images not close (RMS 32.275):FAILED lib/matplotlib/tests/test_mathtext.py::test_mathtext_rendering[svg-mathtext-cm-0] - matplotlib.testing.exceptions.ImageComparisonFailure: images not close (RMS 2.238):FAILED lib/matplotlib/tests/test_mathtext.py::test_mathtext_rendering[svg-mathtext-stix-0] - matplotlib.testing.exceptions.ImageComparisonFailure: images not close (RMS 16.225):FAILED lib/matplotlib/tests/test_mathtext.py::test_mathtext_rendering[svg-mathtext-stixsans-0] - matplotlib.testing.exceptions.ImageComparisonFailure: images not close (RMS 17.217):FAILED lib/matplotlib/tests/test_mathtext.py::test_mathtext_rendering[svg-mathtext-dejavusans-0] - matplotlib.testing.exceptions.ImageComparisonFailure: images not close (RMS 20.396):FAILED lib/matplotlib/tests/test_mathtext.py::test_mathtext_rendering[svg-mathtext-dejavuserif-0] - matplotlib.testing.exceptions.ImageComparisonFailure: images not close (RMS 20.167):
PR Checklist
Tests and Styling
Documentation
PR Summary
Due to a number of issues with the 3.0.x releases of pyparsing having issues,
we are going to for mpl3.5.0 limit to the 2.x series of pyparsing. There is
ongoing work on both the Matplotlib and pyparsing sides and we anticipate that
we will be able to lift this constraint in the next patch release.
Due to one of our dependencies (packaging) also having issues with pyparsing and pinning it back to <3 we have been lulled into a false sense of security about if the v3.5.x branch is passing using pyparsing3 because it was actually testing with pyparsing 2.4.7. Locally I see that on the v3.5.x branch we have:
The tests that fail are all of a dot moving from above a letter to in front of it. If I cherry-pick the commit from#21501 (ec497ae) back to v3.5.x the tests pass. However, given the discussion with@anntzer and@ptmcg I'm not sure if that that fix is "right" or not. From#21501 (comment)
I do not expect a future version of pyparsing to fix it for us so we will need some additional changes on our side
For mpl3.5.0 we need to merge either this PR or#21501. On one hand, merging this PR is "safe" in that we are pretty confident that it won't break our users and buys more time to figure out what the right fix on our side is and in 3.5.1 we can exclude any version of pyparsing we do not want to / can not support (due to known bugs or performance versions). On the other hand, if we merge#21501 we do not have to do any fancy pinning on pyparsing and if the solution there is not ideal we can fix it up in a patch release.
On balance, I think that merging#21501 and closing this PR is the right path forward.
PR Checklist
Tests and Styling
pytestpasses).flake8-docstringsand runflake8 --docstring-convention=all).Documentation
doc/users/next_whats_new/(follow instructions in README.rst there).doc/api/next_api_changes/(follow instructions in README.rst there).