Update dependencies

[paul-paliychuk]

Important

Update dependencies, remove Pydantic version check, and bump version to 2.12.1.

• Dependencies:
  • Update pyproject.toml to add types-python-dateutil and update version constraints.
  • Remove Pydantic version check in memory.py.
• Versioning:
  • Update version to 2.12.1 in pyproject.toml and client_wrapper.py.
• Misc:
  • Add classifiers to pyproject.toml for better package metadata.

^{This description was created by for 8cc5a66. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Caution

Changes requested ❌

Reviewed everything up to 89f0f08 in 1 minute and 41 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 74 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 1 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. pyproject.toml:37

• Draft comment:
  Verify the intended 'mypy' version; switching from 1.9.0 to 1.0.1 looks like a downgrade.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is asking the author to verify the version change of a dependency, which is not allowed according to the rules. It is related to a dependency change, and the rules explicitly state not to comment on dependency changes or library versions.

2. pyproject.toml:37

• Draft comment:
  Mypy version changed from 1.9.0 to 1.0.1. Verify if this downgrade is intentional.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% The comment violates several rules: 1) It asks for verification of intention ("Verify if...") which is explicitly forbidden 2) It's about dependency versions, which we're told to ignore 3) The rules state we should NOT comment on dependency changes or library versions we don't recognize. Even though this is a downgrade, the rules are clear about ignoring dependency-related issues. The downgrade from 1.9.0 to 1.0.1 is significant and could potentially cause issues with type checking functionality. Maybe this deserves special attention? While the version change is significant, the rules explicitly state to NOT comment on dependency changes or library versions. The rules take precedence over our concerns about version changes. The comment should be deleted as it violates multiple review rules - it's about dependencies and asks for verification of intent, both of which are explicitly forbidden.

3. src/zep_cloud/core/client_wrapper.py:20

• Draft comment:
  Updated SDK version header to 2.12.1. Confirm that header matches the package version.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% The comment is asking the author to confirm that the SDK version header matches the package version. This is a request for confirmation, which violates the rule against asking the PR author to confirm their intention or to double-check things.

Workflow ID: wflow_bE9cdKyiBF95w8ew

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 8cc5a66 in 1 minute and 41 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 72 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 1 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. pyproject.toml:20

• Draft comment:
  Removed [project.urls] block. Ensure repository URL info is not needed elsewhere or consider documenting its removal.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. pyproject.toml:33

• Draft comment:
  New dev dependencies (langchain, openai, etc.) were added. Confirm their versions are properly locked to avoid future breakage.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% The comment is about dependency versions, which is not allowed according to the rules. It asks to confirm that versions are properly locked, which is a form of asking for confirmation, also not allowed.

3. src/zep_cloud/external_clients/memory.py:70

• Draft comment:
  Removed Pydantic version check and related import. Since model.model_validate (Pydantic v2) is used, update the dependency constraint accordingly to require Pydantic >=2.0.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

4. pyproject.toml:30

• Draft comment:
  The pydantic dependency is still set to ">= 1.9.2", but the code uses pydantic v2 methods (e.g., model_json_schema and model_validate). Update the pydantic requirement (e.g., ">=2.0") to avoid compatibility issues.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

5. src/zep_cloud/external_clients/memory.py:70

• Draft comment:
  Removed pydantic version check but code still relies on pydantic v2 API (model_json_schema, model_validate). Ensure the pydantic version is updated or provide backward-compatible handling.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% The comment raises a valid technical concern - removing version checks while keeping v2-specific API calls could cause runtime errors. However, this feels like a dependency management issue that should be handled through requirements.txt or setup.py, not through runtime checks. The PR author likely removed these checks intentionally as part of dependency management changes. I might be wrong about dependency management - maybe there's a specific reason these runtime checks were needed. Also, I don't have access to the package requirements to confirm how pydantic versioning is handled. Even with those uncertainties, runtime version checks are not the right solution - this should be handled through proper dependency specification in the project's package management. The comment should be deleted as it relates to dependency management, which is explicitly excluded from our review scope per the rules.

6. src/zep_cloud/external_clients/memory.py:125

• Draft comment:
  In the AsyncMemoryClient.extract docstring example, the CustomerInfo class shows two fields with the key 'name'. The second field should likely be 'email: Optional[ZepEmail]' instead of 'name: Optional[ZepEmail]'. This typographical error could lead to confusion in understanding the example.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_GbVKeTxxKcdQiVtB

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}