Skip to content

Fix wonky dependency range on datasets #1774

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

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

Conversation

timkpaine
Copy link

@timkpaine timkpaine commented Aug 22, 2025

SUMMARY:
Fixes dependencies

TEST PLAN:
None

Copy link

👋 Hi! Thank you for contributing to llm-compressor. Please add the ready label when the PR is ready for review.

Note: This is required to complete the testing suite, please only add the label once the PR is code complete and local testing has been performed.

Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Summary of Changes

Hello @timkpaine, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses a restrictive dependency range for the datasets package within setup.py. It updates the version constraint for release builds, allowing datasets version 4.1.0 in addition to 4.0.0, thereby fixing a "wonky" or overly narrow specification.

Highlights

  • Dependency Range Update: The datasets package dependency in setup.py has been updated for release builds. The previous range datasets>=4.0.0,<=4.0.0 (effectively ==4.0.0) has been broadened to datasets>=4.0.0,<=4.1.0.
Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.

Feature Command Description
Code Review /gemini review Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary /gemini summary Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment @gemini-code-assist Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments.
Help /gemini help Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

  1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution.

Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code Review

This pull request aims to fix an unconventional dependency range for the datasets package. The change correctly identifies the awkward notation but replaces it with a wider version range, which might not be the intended behavior. My feedback suggests using an exact version pin (==4.0.0) to maintain the original constraint while improving clarity, as this seems to be the safer and more direct fix for the issue.

@kylesayrs
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @timkpaine, thanks for the catch!

These bounds were determined empirically by #1734. Since 4.0.0 is the latest release, it remains unbounded outside of release builds and bounded during release builds for future-proofing.

I agree that the upper bounding is equivalent to ==, so it can be changed, but it may be changed back to an explicit upper bound when the next datasets version is released.

@kylesayrs
Copy link
Collaborator

Adding a comment might also clarify that this notation was not a mistake, and should be changed for the next datasets release

@timkpaine timkpaine force-pushed the patch-1 branch 2 times, most recently from 89b3e93 to 9c76ffd Compare August 22, 2025 14:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants