pillow 9.3.0 with libjpeg-turbo

[bollwyvl]

Checklist

• Used a personal fork of the feedstock to propose changes
• Bumped the build number (if the version is unchanged)
• Reset the build number to 0 (if the version changed)
• Re-rendered with the latest conda-smithy (Use the phrase @conda-forge-admin, please rerender in a comment in this PR for automated rerendering)
• Ensured the license file is being packaged.

Closes #126

[conda-forge-linter]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipe) and found it was in an excellent condition.

[h-vetinari]

So, the failing test here is known to be failing with libjpeg_turbo, and marked as such even in the source (and shows up in the logs here):

______________ TestFileLibTiff.test_strip_ycbcr_jpeg_2x2_sampling ______________

self = <Tests.test_file_libtiff.TestFileLibTiff object at 0x7f2cd2703220>

    @mark_if_feature_version(
        pytest.mark.valgrind_known_error, "libjpeg_turbo", "2.0", reason="Known Failing"
    )
    def test_strip_ycbcr_jpeg_2x2_sampling(self):
        infile = "Tests/images/tiff_strip_ycbcr_jpeg_2x2_sampling.tif"
        with Image.open(infile) as im:
>           assert_image_similar_tofile(im, "Tests/images/flower.jpg", 1.2)

It seems that skip might not be triggering because we're already on libjpeg-turob 2.1 rather than 2.0.

On top of that, it's only an accuracy failure:

>           assert epsilon >= ave_diff, (
                (msg or "")
                + f" average pixel value difference {ave_diff:.4f} > epsilon {epsilon:.4f}"
            )
E           AssertionError:  average pixel value difference 1.4928 > epsilon 1.2000

So I feel it's a non-issue (triply so...) to skip this test.

[h-vetinari]

@radarhere
Maybe you could help out here. We were thinking of switching to libjpeg-turbo (a longstanding TODO we've had for this feedstock), but there's a failing test on osx test_load_blp1. It only fails on OSX, however, there it does fail severely:

E           AssertionError:  average pixel value difference 537.3142 > epsilon 1.2000

Interestingly, that same test is failing in #126 even built against regular jpeg (where it also fails against linux/windows!), however, it's passing as of 9.4 (#132; built against jpeg; however, that PR runs into another - single - failing test on all platforms: test_get_child_images)

[radarhere]

Pillow 9.4.0 included python-pillow/Pillow#6767 to fix python-pillow/Pillow#6741. In that issue, test_load_blp1 was failing when run with libjpeg. You seem to be saying it is also failing for libjpeg-turbo, but as it's a past version of Pillow, there may not be much point in discussing that.

As for the failure with test_get_child_images, in order to pass with libjpeg, I imagine we just need to relax the check slightly, from assert_image_equal_tofile to assert_image_similar_tofile.

I don't think you've tried libjpeg-turbo with Pillow 9.4 though. Does that pass both test_load_blp1 and test_get_child_images?

[h-vetinari]

Thanks for the quick feedback!

I don't think you've tried libjpeg-turbo with Pillow 9.4 though. Does that pass both test_load_blp1 and test_get_child_images?

I just tried in #32, including a patch to downgrade test_get_child_images to similarity. Didn't know what eps to take, so I took the one from test_load_blp1, but this still fails (linux/win):

E           AssertionError:  average pixel value difference 1.4928 > epsilon 1.2000

On OSX:

E           AssertionError:  average pixel value difference 2.0033 > epsilon 1.2000

Would eps=2.1 still be acceptable IYO? In the meantime, I'm also trying if backporting python-pillow/Pillow#6767 would help us fix 9.3 after all.

[radarhere]

Sure, thanks. I've created python-pillow/Pillow#6853

[hmaarrfk]

Please see discussion conda-forge/conda-forge.github.io#673

[jakirkham]

There's now a migration PR ( #137 ) adding libjpeg-turbo. Are we ok going with that? Is there anything else needed from here?

[bollwyvl]

This hasn't caused me any more issues... Must confess I was a bit out off my depth anyway. I'm just on my phone right now, though, so feel free to close it out!

[h-vetinari]

Are we ok going with that? Is there anything else needed from here?

AFAIU this time it's being done properly (i.e. a conda-forge-wide migration, rather than just changing pillow), mainly driven by @hmaarrfk (thanks!).

[jakirkham]

Looking through things here, the two notable changes appear to be addressed in other ways. There are some minor patch updates, but these likely already are included with updates. Not seeing anything else major we are missing, but please feel free to correct me if I missed something

[jakirkham]

This patch went in pillow version 9.4.0 with PR ( python-pillow/Pillow#6767 ). So presumably it is no longer needed as long as the latest version is building

[jakirkham]

This was already dropped in commit ( 2e44e14 ) (as the full test suite is now run)

[h-vetinari]

@jakirkham, no need to review here, this PR was completely obsoleted by #132 (see discussion here), but just never closed.

[jakirkham]

Was trying to answer my own question

Is there anything else needed from here?

Though yeah sounds like nothing is needed. Let's close