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

Use string type annotations for Python 3.11 not 3.10 #420

Merged
merged 7 commits into from Jun 19, 2021

Conversation

frenzymadness
Copy link
Contributor

PEP 563 has been postponed to Python 3.11
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/thread/CLVXXPQ2T2LQ5MP2Y53VVQFCXYWQJHKZ/

Another possibility is to revert this commit: 8a278a1

It's basically up to you to decide whether you want to be ready for Python 3.11 and keep this in the codebase for a year and a half.

And finally, the last possibility might be to use from __future__ import annotations to enable the new feature for Python 3.7+.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 10, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #420 (ebac5f5) into master (6e0f571) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #420   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.76%   91.76%           
=======================================
  Files           4        4           
  Lines         668      668           
  Branches      136      136           
=======================================
  Hits          613      613           
  Misses         34       34           
  Partials       21       21           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6e0f571...ebac5f5. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Contributor

@ogrisel ogrisel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. Maybe we want to explore the support for 3.7+ using the from __future__ pattern but I am not sure about the implications.

@ogrisel
Copy link
Contributor

ogrisel commented Jun 11, 2021

We probably need to update the CI config to include a nightly build to test explicitly the future 3.11 from the the main branch of Python and the 3.10 pre-release separately.

@pierreglaser
Copy link
Member

pierreglaser commented Jun 15, 2021

Python 3.11 is now tested in nightly while Python 3.10 is tested in the 3.10-dev entry.
Now, testing against nightly fails, because of some change in the code constructor.

@pierreglaser
Copy link
Member

At the time when I am writing this message, the change in the code constructor has still an uncertain future. As discussed here: https://bugs.python.org/issue40222, the change might be reverted for the sake of backward compatibility, although it is not sure yet. For this reason, I suggest we make the CI entry using Python nightly (3.11 right now) optional until a final solution to the previous issue is decided.

@pierreglaser pierreglaser added the ci python-nightly Signal the CI to run the test suite of cloudpickle against the master branch of CPython label Jun 19, 2021
@pierreglaser
Copy link
Member

pierreglaser commented Jun 19, 2021

(Just making that labelling this PR using the python-nightly label triggers a run of the python-nightly CI entry)

@pierreglaser pierreglaser removed the ci python-nightly Signal the CI to run the test suite of cloudpickle against the master branch of CPython label Jun 19, 2021
@pierreglaser pierreglaser merged commit eddd327 into cloudpipe:master Jun 19, 2021
@pierreglaser
Copy link
Member

pierreglaser commented Jun 19, 2021

(Skipping an entry in the changelog since this PR only affected tests and CI config)

EDIT: actually, a changelog entry was added for #400, So we need to update it since this PR updates changes from #400.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants