-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 125
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
Handle compatibility with dev version of AgentsExampleZoo better #956
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #956 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 85.71% 85.71%
=======================================
Files 36 36
Lines 2542 2542
=======================================
Hits 2179 2179
Misses 363 363 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Strangely enough this works instead, github is crazy :S Maybe it is that this is more recent pr (?), so merging the other two before this one will be enough to make CI happy, this is my bet :D |
The existence of this PR highlights why one should avoid circular dependencies in packages. |
I think that it actually higlights this when both packages depends on unreleased versions. We are in this strange situation because of this. When both packages will be released, there will be no problem like this anymore, it will be as if the models where inside Agents.jl. We will just pin the major version on both packages to ensure everything works. I think the only problem which could arise is that if we make a major version of Agents without updating AgentsExampleZoo he will need a downgrade of Agents. But this will never happen if we don't completely forget about AgentsExampleZoo :D |
The same problem will also always happen for every major version change in either package. |
In any case, let's just get this in for now and we can consider more how to deal with it before releasing v6. |
Since #875 has some problems I do this separately, see #875 (comment) for why we need this
edit: actually #875 is fine because also #946 has the same errors, but both work locally. However, let's merge this separately anyway since it is more sensible anyway