build(deps): math-spec 0.0.0-alpha.92, which says the dimensions a walk joins on

[FBumann]

Prompt: "488 merged and released. Bump mathspec version!"

Note

The following content was generated by AI.

The pin follows math-spec 0.0.0-alpha.92, the release carrying energy-models/mathspec#488: GroupSum.joined and At.joined. The two copies of that answer here — relations.joined_dims on the relational lane and builder._joined_dims on the eager one — are deleted, and both lanes read it off the node. The follow-up #1659 and #1660 named.

What moved

• pyproject.toml and uv.lock: the pin, v0.0.0-alpha.89 to v0.0.0-alpha.92.
• relations.py: landed and walk_join take the node rather than its walks, and read node.joined; joined_dims is gone.
• compiler.py: _remap_fragment takes the node; _empty_groups and _pulled_back_presences read g.joined and a.joined.
• linopy/builder.py: the grouped sum passes node.joined; _joined_dims is gone.

Five files, +26 −40.

Verified

ruff check · ruff format --check · pyrefly check · pytest -q -n 4 on 309422e, with alpha.92 installed: 3772 passed, the same 10 failures as main (gurobi, xpress not installed here). Run in a uv venv with the linopy extra rather than pixi.

Not run: docs-build and test-floors, no pixi environment here. The parity job checks out the corpus at the pinned tag, so it runs against alpha.92 in CI.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01DT1r52zPp9BdnrzFdp1xoY

---

Generated by Claude Code

[read-the-docs-community]

Documentation build overview

📚 lpspec | 🛠️ Build #34584808 | 📁 Comparing 309422e against latest (041fb57)

  🔍 Preview build  

1 file changed

± about/changelog/index.html

[codspeed]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 24 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 58 skipped benchmarks¹

---

_{Comparing claude/mathspec-relations-issues-tsf1fa (309422e) with main (2f96905)²}

Footnotes

1. 58 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

2. No successful run was found on main (041fb57) during the generation of this report, so 2f96905 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩