Skip to content
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.

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

Support Python 3.9 #3622

Closed
stevepiercy opened this issue Nov 2, 2020 · 10 comments
Closed

Support Python 3.9 #3622

stevepiercy opened this issue Nov 2, 2020 · 10 comments

Comments

@stevepiercy
Copy link
Member

Feature Request

I think we should start officially supporting Python 3.9. It was added to pyenv in early October 2020, so we can run it locally now.

If you agree, I can put together the PR for all the necessary changes to docs, tox, etc.

@mmerickel
Copy link
Member

mmerickel commented Nov 2, 2020 via email

@stevepiercy
Copy link
Member Author

Should I backport support for 3.9 to either the 1.10-branch or 1.9-branch, if feasible? I can't remember for sure if our policy allows adding support to an already released major version. I recall we do not drop support.

@mmerickel
Copy link
Member

mmerickel commented Nov 3, 2020 via email

@stevepiercy
Copy link
Member Author

Note that I did not bump coverage to py39 because it resulted in a single line getting missed in coverage.

src/pyramid/config/actions.py                                             217      1    99.54%   317

Here's the line in context.

https://github.com/stevepiercy/pyramid/blob/d18c1eb95e8d492e5a9e17b6e2a447e1637ba204/src/pyramid/config/actions.py#L317

I have no idea why this works in 3.8.0 but not 3.9.0 locally, so I reverted to 3.8. Can you try to reproduce it?

@mmerickel
Copy link
Member

I do not see any clues immediately in the 3.9 changelog, but that's a line that might just warrant a pragma no cover.

@stevepiercy
Copy link
Member Author

I dug through Python 3.9 changelog and bug tracker, but only one thing came up that might be related to the line number that coverage reports as missing, but I doubt it. This issue in coverage looks very similar to what would happen by bumping coverage to 3.9.

I wish we had added 3.9-dev as an allowed failure in Travis to have some history. 3.10-dev is now available, so I'll add that as an allowed failure.

@stevepiercy
Copy link
Member Author

Nevermind. GitHub Actions does not support allowed failures in a way that is similar to Travis.

@stevepiercy
Copy link
Member Author

I'm debating whether to add Python 3.7+ support to 1.9-branch, given 2.0 is around the corner and it did not go well for the cookiecutter Pylons/pyramid-cookiecutter-starter#98. I think it would be a lot of effort for very little benefit to a small audience. What do y'all think?

@mmerickel
Copy link
Member

I think it's fine to not touch 1.9 unless you just can't help yourself. I haven't been planning to cut a new release of it.

@stevepiercy
Copy link
Member Author

OK. 3.9 support on 1.10 and master (2.0) is good enough and provides a sensible upgrade path. I got bigger fish to fry.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants