fix: test targets unreleased Python 3.14

[andrewwhitecdw]

This PR addresses the following issue in conda/recipes/pylibraft/recipe.yaml: test targets unreleased Python 3.14.

Changes

• conda/recipes/pylibraft/recipe.yaml: test targets unreleased Python 3.14.

Details

See the Files changed tab for the exact diff.

Tests

Let me know if you want tests added for this fix or not.

[copy-pr-bot]

This pull request requires additional validation before any workflows can run on NVIDIA's runners.

Pull request vetters can view their responsibilities here.

Contributors can view more details about this message here.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Enterprise

Run ID: 3415c90b-b139-46fb-bbc3-c071226ad138

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e2437c4 and 040c7e3.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• conda/recipes/raft-dask/recipe.yaml

---

📝 Walkthrough

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Updated the latest Python runtime test context from Python 3.14 to Python 3.13.

Walkthrough

The raft-dask recipe changes the py_runtime_latest test context from Python 3.14 to Python 3.13.

Changes

raft-dask runtime configuration

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Update latest Python test runtime conda/recipes/raft-dask/recipe.yaml	The py_runtime_latest test context now uses Python 3.13 instead of Python 3.14.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes

Mergeability Score: 🔵 Low · up to 040c7

This PR changes the test runtime target from Python 3.14 to 3.13. It is likely mergeable, but the owner should confirm that Python 3.13 is intentionally supported as the latest test runtime and that the target matches current package availability.

Suggested reviewers: jameslamb

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly identifies the fix: tests incorrectly target unreleased Python 3.14.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description addresses the Python 3.14 test-target issue, although it names a different recipe file than the changeset.

✨ Finishing Touches 💡 1

🛠️ Fix failing CI checks 💡

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

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

[msarahan]

confirming coderabbit's suspicion with additional evidence:

Why the PR looks wrong:
Python 3.14 was released on October 7, 2025; the PR was opened August 13, 2026. It is not unreleased. Python 3.14.0 release
RAFT explicitly added Python 3.14 support in February 2026 through PR #2966, including this exact 3.13 → 3.14 change.
The RAPIDS-wide Python 3.14 support project is completed, including RAFT and all relevant upstream projects.
The PR description says it changes pylibraft, but the actual diff changes raft-dask. pylibraft remains configured to test Python 3.14, making the PR internally inconsistent.
No failure, missing dependency, solver output, or test result is supplied to justify why raft-dask specifically cannot run on 3.14.
The PR’s substantive CI has not run because the external contribution has not been vetted; the currently visible checks therefore do not validate the change.
There is one hypothetical scenario where such a downgrade could be justified: if a particular channel and architecture cannot solve the complete raft-dask dependency environment on Python 3.14. But then the PR would need to identify the unavailable dependency and explain why removing 3.14 coverage is the chosen temporary workaround. This PR does neither.

Closing for now - @andrewwhitecdw please explain more if you think we should reconsider.

[msarahan]

sorry, this may have been premature. Need confirmation, as in #3116