Bump Beartype bounds

[jrmccluskey]

Slide Beartype bounds to hit current minor releases.

---

Thank you for your contribution! Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily:

• Mention the appropriate issue in your description (for example: addresses #123), if applicable. This will automatically add a link to the pull request in the issue. If you would like the issue to automatically close on merging the pull request, comment fixes #<ISSUE NUMBER> instead.
• Update CHANGES.md with noteworthy changes.
• If this contribution is large, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

See the Contributor Guide for more tips on how to make review process smoother.

To check the build health, please visit https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.test-infra/BUILD_STATUS.md

GitHub Actions Tests Status (on master branch)

See CI.md for more information about GitHub Actions CI or the workflows README to see a list of phrases to trigger workflows.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @jrmccluskey, 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 updates the version constraint for the beartype dependency within the Python SDK. This adjustment ensures that the project can leverage the latest minor releases of the beartype library, incorporating recent features, bug fixes, and performance improvements without breaking compatibility with existing major versions.

Highlights

• Dependency Update: The version bounds for the beartype dependency have been updated in the Python SDK's setup.py file.
• Version Range Adjustment: The beartype dependency constraint has been changed from >=0.21.0,<0.22.0 to >=0.22.0,<0.23.0, allowing the project to utilize newer minor releases of the library.

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 by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

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 pull request 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. ↩

[github-actions]

Checks are failing. Will not request review until checks are succeeding. If you'd like to override that behavior, comment assign set of reviewers

[jrmccluskey]

assign set of reviewers

[jrmccluskey]

Coverage failure is from a failure to start Docker-in-Docker, also red on master

[github-actions]

Assigning reviewers:

R: @liferoad for label python.

Note: If you would like to opt out of this review, comment assign to next reviewer.

Available commands:

• stop reviewer notifications - opt out of the automated review tooling
• remind me after tests pass - tag the comment author after tests pass
• waiting on author - shift the attention set back to the author (any comment or push by the author will return the attention set to the reviewers)

The PR bot will only process comments in the main thread (not review comments).

[github-actions]

Reminder, please take a look at this pr: @liferoad

[github-actions]

Assigning new set of reviewers because Pr has gone too long without review. If you would like to opt out of this review, comment assign to next reviewer:

R: @damccorm for label python.

Available commands:

• stop reviewer notifications - opt out of the automated review tooling
• remind me after tests pass - tag the comment author after tests pass
• waiting on author - shift the attention set back to the author (any comment or push by the author will return the attention set to the reviewers)

[damccorm]

Do we need to be this tight on the bounds? Is there something specific we need in 0.22 in order to function?

[jrmccluskey]

In general no, although this version jump from 0.21.0 to 0.22.0 did wind up changing the import paths of some subpackages (which we don't currently import directly, but could in the future.) I think for this jump I'd prefer to keep it tight as we incorporate beartype, then loosen the bounds slowly.

[damccorm]

I think if we can be looser, we should. This is part of the core beam library which means that if anyone is relying on a package which enforces a different BearType version, they won't be able to install Beam naively. If it was an extra I'd feel differently, but if there are no known issues then I think we should be loose.

[github-actions]

Reminder, please take a look at this pr: @damccorm

[damccorm]

waiting on author

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 57.04%. Comparing base (c6fc698) to head (0ce138c).
⚠️ Report is 35 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #36792       +/-   ##
=============================================
+ Coverage     40.37%   57.04%   +16.67%     
  Complexity     3476     3476               
=============================================
  Files          1226     1226               
  Lines        188407   188606      +199     
  Branches       3607     3607               
=============================================
+ Hits          76063   107587    +31524     
+ Misses       108946    77620    -31326     
- Partials       3398     3399        +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
python	80.75% <ø> (+40.12%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.