Warning when using SQL Server 2025 #13180
-
|
If I use SQLAlchemy with MS SQL Server 2025 I get this warning:
As far as I can see, everything works as expected, same as SQL Server 2022. If I change the number 17 to 18 in this I don''t get te warning. sqlalchemy/lib/sqlalchemy/dialects/mssql/base.py Line 3309 in 0de6c84 Is this that all that needs to be done to support MS SQL Server 2025? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 2 comments 8 replies
-
|
well when whoever put that range in there, those were the versions that were known, so technically we dont know if the full SQLAlchemy test suite passes with SQL Server 2025. I have 2022 running here thats the highest we've tested. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
looks like it was me a long time ago, a little surprising |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I would assume back then the logic for SQL Server version numbers was baffling to me. we can just take the warning out, it's fine |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
yes, I would assume that new versions will generally keep backward compatibility |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I've created #13185. digging a bit it seems that this was originally added in 64d92c8 for #1825 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This warning is due to SQLAlchemy’s version check, which currently only recognizes SQL Server versions up to 16 (SQL Server 2022). SQL Server 2025 reports version 17.x, so it falls outside the accepted range and triggers the warning. Updating the range to include 17 would likely suppress the warning, but that alone doesn’t guarantee full support. Proper support depends on validating the MSSQL dialect against SQL Server 2025. Since everything appears to work correctly, this seems to be a version recognition issue rather than a functional problem. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks for adapting the version check. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
I've created #13185.
digging a bit it seems that this was originally added in 64d92c8 for #1825