Two people who cannot stand each other can still be stuck behind the exact same obstacle.
Why this feels like a compromise when it is not
Building a working relationship around a shared complaint, a difficult manager, a process that is not working, a decision you both think is wrong, can feel like it does not count as a real collaboration, more like two people using each other's frustration for cover. It counts. The alliance is honest about what it is, a response to one specific, shared obstacle, and it is allowed to end the moment that obstacle is gone.
What this looks like done well
The scope stays narrow. You address the specific obstacle, not every other disagreement you have with this person, and you do not pretend the alliance is closer than it is once the issue is resolved. That is what keeps it honest, not a weakness in the arrangement.
Where to start
If someone you do not get along with is visibly frustrated by the same thing you are, that is a legitimate basis for raising it together, not a compromise of standards.
Name the obstacle specifically when you approach them, keep the conversation to that, and let it close naturally once it is resolved.
Reading how far to let a shared-obstacle alliance extend, versus when it is overreaching into a relationship that is not actually there, is a judgment to keep checking honestly as you go. What this gives you is the boundary worth keeping, narrow and specific to the obstacle.
There is a specific way to raise a shared frustration with someone you do not get along with, without it sounding like more than it is, and it is worth having ready before the next obstacle you both hit.