Unskip tests that were previously failing

[willingc]

Fixes #831

Tested locally with 3.13 which was failing earlier in the day.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.13%. Comparing base (cb2eb37) to head (085924f).
⚠️ Report is 22 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #846      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.54%   91.13%   -0.42%     
==========================================
  Files          17       17              
  Lines        1621     1635      +14     
==========================================
+ Hits         1484     1490       +6     
- Misses        137      145       +8     

see 5 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 541ee66...085924f. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR unskips two previously broken tests in the test suite that now pass with Python 3.13, addressing issue #831.

• Removes @unittest.skip decorators from two test methods
• Tests are now enabled and can run as part of the test suite

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Borda]

@willingc, just curious —any reason you duplicated work that was already done in #838?

[willingc]

@willingc, just curious —any reason you duplicated work that was already done in #838?

@Borda I was following up on earlier work from #828 and #836 which cleaned up build errors and Python versions. I opened #831 as a reminder to go back and check tests that were previously failing for 3.13 and 3.14.

#838 was still a draft WIP PR from Copilot. I was also working on #841 test results to support 3.14 #841 (comment)

#838 (comment)

As for whether or not I like bots, I view them as a tool but not a replacement for human PRs and reviews. I think that the tool's results can be good in some cases, but in other scenarios the tool recommends unnecessary churn and takes a less conservative solution. That said, I am ok with us using Copilot if there is a human-in-the-loop. Here's what we have been doing on Python: https://devguide.python.org/getting-started/generative-ai/

Overall, I'm happy that we have rebooted moving papermill forward. 🚀

[Borda]

I agree that bots shall not be released in wild but work along side with human or under supervision...

That said, I am ok with us using Copilot if there is a human-in-the-loop.

This was the case, as I signed him the task and prompted him and was asign to the PR too... But if the way for is just human PRs only fine with me and will go further 🐼

Here's what we have been doing on Python: https://devguide.python.org/getting-started/generative-ai/

Sorry to read that, didn't know that Python conservative and not favoring developer productivity. 😕

[willingc]

Sorry to read that, didn't know that Python against innovation and effective development.

We are not against it. We are being conservative since we have seen a bunch of AI slop in the past two years. Personally, a few of us are working on adding md files for better AI context to the repo.

[willingc]

Feel free to keep using copilot @Borda. I think that there are benefits with it.

[Borda]

We are not against it. We are being conservative since we have seen a bunch of AI slop in the past two years.

Sounds like refusing to use pressure pot because at its early days they exploded a few times and ignore what was the progress since then... 🦩
Also as old proverb say, fire good helper but bad master 😉

[winniehell]

@Borda that is not an argument but only a weird analogy.

I like to use my pressure pot for potatoes but even though it has never exploded, I refuse to put in my pizza and chocolate.

also using more pressure pots doesn't directly cause fewer explosions.

[Borda]

I like to use my pressure pot for potatoes but even though it has never exploded, I refuse to put in my pizza and chocolate.
also using more pressure pots doesn't directly cause fewer explosions.

@winniehell cool, seems you understood, and thank you for rephrasing what I just said :)