Rename cache-max-size-none and check functools.cache

[DanielNoord]

• Add a ChangeLog entry describing what your PR does.
• If it's a new feature, or an important bug fix, add a What's New entry in
  doc/whatsnew/<current release.rst>.
• Write a good description on what the PR does.
• If you used multiple emails or multiple names when contributing, add your mails
  and preferred name in script/.contributors_aliases.json

Type of Changes

	Type
✓	✨ New feature

Description

Closes #5670.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 2187900060

• 11 of 11 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.0009%) to 95.151%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 2184960116:	0.0009%
Covered Lines:	15778
Relevant Lines:	16582

---

💛 - Coveralls

[Pierre-Sassoulas]

Needs a documentation with good.py and bad.py too :)

[jacobtylerwalls]

Haven't looked in detail yet, but why wouldn't this just be a case for the existing message for lru_cache(maxsize=None)? It seems a bit of a usability flaw to have to enable/disable both messages when they do/check the same thing.

[DanielNoord]

Haven't looked in detail yet, but why wouldn't this just be a case for the existing message for lru_cache(maxsize=None)? It seems a bit of a usability flaw to have to enable/disable both messages when they do/check the same thing.

The other message has lru... in it while the decorator doesn't. I can imagine people might wonder why we're complaining about lru_cache when they are using cache.

I'm fine with adding to the other message as well though

[jacobtylerwalls]

Yeah. It's hard because we've already released it. I feel like it should be renamed to something like cache-maxsize-none. But on the other hand we're addressing it really quickly in a patch release. I don't want to push too hard -- let's see what others think!

[DanielNoord]

Yeah. It's hard because we've already released it. I feel like it should be renamed to something like cache-max-size-none. But on the other hand we're addressing it really quickly in a patch release. I don't want to push too hard -- let's see what others think!

With old-names it is fairly trivial to rename it.

[Pierre-Sassoulas]

Also agree that we should rename and merge the two message.

[DanielNoord]

@jacobtylerwalls Gentle ping 😄

[jacobtylerwalls]

Thanks for the ping! Following Pierre's earlier comment, I'm also surprised this doesn't emit on pure functions. Was there a discussion elsewhere that clarified the reasoning?