Mark test test_spectral_clustering_output_shape_type_and_label_count as xfail

[csadorf]

Marks test_spectral_clustering.py::test_spectral_clustering_output_shape_type_and_label_count as expected to fail we work on identifying and fixing the root cause; tracked in #7714 .

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests

  • Marked certain spectral clustering tests as expected failures due to a known issue.

• Chores

  • Updated copyright year information.

Walkthrough

Added xfail markers to two tests in test_spectral_clustering.py to indicate expected failures related to issue 7714. Updated copyright year in file header from 2025 to 2025-2026. No test logic or runtime behavior changes.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Test Markers & Metadata python/cuml/tests/test_spectral_clustering.py	Added xfail markers to two tests to mark expected failures related to issue 7714. Updated copyright year from 2025 to 2025-2026.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Suggested labels

Cython / Python, improvement, non-breaking

Suggested reviewers

• jcrist

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: marking a specific test as xfail (expected to fail), which matches the core modification in the pull request.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description is directly related to the changeset, explaining why the test is marked as xfail and referencing the tracked issue, which aligns with the modifications made.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

🧹 Recent nitpick comments

python/cuml/tests/test_spectral_clustering.py (1)

246-246: Consider adding strict=True to surface when the underlying issue is resolved.

Without strict=True, once the root cause (issue #7714) is fixed, this test will silently pass as XPASS without anyone being prompted to remove the marker. Adding strict=True makes CI fail on an unexpected pass, serving as a reminder to clean up.

Suggested change

-@pytest.mark.xfail(reason="https://github.com/rapidsai/cuml/issues/7714")
+@pytest.mark.xfail(reason="https://github.com/rapidsai/cuml/issues/7714", strict=True)

Tip

Issue Planner is now in beta. Read the docs and try it out! Share your feedback on Discord.

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[betatim]

LGTM.

It would be nice if we could tell hypothesis/pytest that only this one example is known to fail. Instead of having to mark the whole test as xfail. From a quick look at the docs I think you can mark a particular @example(...).xfail() but that won't stop hypothesis from generating that example again. But maybe it is super unlikely to generate the eact same example anyway.

My conclusion as a hypothesis novice: it would be nice to keep some of this test, but unclear to me how to do that. Fine for me to merge as is, or for someone with hypothesis mega skills to show us how it is done :D

[csadorf]

LGTM.

It would be nice if we could tell hypothesis/pytest that only this one example is known to fail. Instead of having to mark the whole test as xfail. From a quick look at the docs I think you can mark a particular @example(...).xfail() but that won't stop hypothesis from generating that example again. But maybe it is super unlikely to generate the eact same example anyway.

My conclusion as a hypothesis novice: it would be nice to keep some of this test, but unclear to me how to do that. Fine for me to merge as is, or for someone with hypothesis mega skills to show us how it is done :D

My intention is to keep #7714 open and actually address the underlying problem. If that's not possible, we can consider a more fine-grained approach.

[csadorf]

/merge