Skip to content

[Experimental] Update google-adk dependency range #40689

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
jrmccluskey merged 1 commit into from
Oct 20, 2026
Merged

[Experimental] Update google-adk dependency range #40689

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion .github/trigger_files/beam_PreCommit_Python_ML.json
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
{
"comment": "Modify this file in a trivial way to cause this test suite to run",
"revision": 8
"revision": 22
}
8 changes: 4 additions & 4 deletions sdks/python/setup.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -207,13 +207,13 @@ def cythonize(*args, **kwargs):
]

ml_adk_dependency = [
'google-adk==1.28.1',
'google-adk>=2.0.0,<3',

@damccorm damccorm Oct 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we keep 1.28.1 as a lower bound?

@jrmccluskey jrmccluskey Oct 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think even if we kept the lower bound at 1.28.1 the dependency resolution process is always going to select for 2.0.0+ anyway, probably best to keep the bounds tighter given that would be the range getting pulled for testing.

@damccorm damccorm Oct 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh fair - I was thinking that we exposed this as a non-test extra, but we don't. This seems fine then.

# proto-plus<1.24 caps protobuf<5; opentelemetry-proto (via ADK) needs
# protobuf>=5. Scoped here so the main dependency list stays broader.
'proto-plus>=1.26.1,<2',
'opentelemetry-api==1.37.0',
'opentelemetry-sdk==1.37.0',
'opentelemetry-exporter-otlp-proto-http==1.37.0',
'opentelemetry-api>=1.36.0,<1.43',
'opentelemetry-sdk>=1.36.0,<1.43',
'opentelemetry-exporter-otlp-proto-http>=1.36.0,<1.43',
# protobuf>=5 (ADK/OTel); tf2onnx 1.16.x pins protobuf~=3.20 only.
'tf2onnx>=1.17.0,<1.18',
]
Expand Down
Loading