-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.7k
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
Drop python 3.8 support #12875
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Drop python 3.8 support #12875
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks lovely at first glance
testing/code/test_excinfo.py
Outdated
if upframe.f_code.co_name == "_makepath": | ||
# Only raise with expected calls, but not via e.g. inspect for | ||
# py38-windows. | ||
# py38-windows. (?) | ||
raised += 1 | ||
raise OSError(2, "custom_oserror") | ||
return orig_path_cwd() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure what to do here, advise welcome
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
#6529 does not offer any explanation, however #6463 (comment) links it and implies that there might've been flakiness in the Codecov uploader. But this was like almost 5 years ago, and Codecov has since rewritten their uploader 3 times. We've additionally made it less flaky by hardcoding a plain-text token a few months ago.
Looking into the coverage reports, something weird is happening. The if-line is marked as covered partially, both in this PR and on main
:
- https://app.codecov.io/gh/pytest-dev/pytest/pull/12875/blob/testing/code/test_excinfo.py#L966
- https://app.codecov.io/gh/pytest-dev/pytest/blob/main/testing%2Fcode%2Ftest_excinfo.py#L966
However, the return
line is reported as 100% covered in the PR (https://app.codecov.io/gh/pytest-dev/pytest/pull/12875/blob/testing/code/test_excinfo.py#L971) while on main
it's marked as not covered (https://app.codecov.io/gh/pytest-dev/pytest/blob/main/testing%2Fcode%2Ftest_excinfo.py#L966).
AFAIU, the raise
instruction can only be reached on if True
and the return
statement would be reachable on if False
. That should cover both branches of the if-block. So I don't understand why the conditional is marked with partial coverage.
_makepath()
is also fully covered in both cases:
- https://app.codecov.io/gh/pytest-dev/pytest/pull/12875/blob/src/_pytest/_code/code.py#L955
- https://app.codecov.io/gh/pytest-dev/pytest/blob/main/src%2F_pytest%2F_code%2Fcode.py#L958
P.S. While looking into Codecov, I realized that it does not show any coverage for src/pytest/
— it's just not there. It looks like we also have Coveragepy misconfigured or something. Something to investigate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I investigated a little, it was introduced in 79ae86c so that this function did not raise accidentally when inspecting on some env. So this is still useful as it's not only applicable for windows py38.
Changed the configuration of the repo so
|
14b36ce
to
3f03eda
Compare
3dd3871
to
62da60e
Compare
This is ready for review. I have no idea why I need fe1f3f7 (or why it fixes the issue) but otherwise we get a:
(See the commit before the last one's pipeline : https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest/actions/runs/11775505463). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Strange, all jobs are installing Python 3.9 and using that. For example, this is the windows-py312
job:
https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest/actions/runs/11775818422/job/32797006395?pr=12875
It is clearly installing Python 3.9 ("Set up Python 3.9") and we can see that also in the test suite:
============================= test session starts ==============================
platform linux -- Python 3.9.20, pytest-8.4.0.dev153+gbedb1aecd, pluggy-1.5.0
From what I can tell all jobs are like that.
Fixing your other comment and reverting the bad fix, worked:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks, sorry for the delay!
No problem, it's a lot to review ! There was a conflict that I fixed, I'm going to clean up the history later on. (Or maybe we can squash everything ? Feels wrong though). |
Cleaning up the commit history here seems like a good idea. |
1484446
to
3def6df
Compare
4d3e7ae is bulky, but it's the only way to have each commit passing the tests suite (fixup of the pre-commit automated fixes and the CI/doc already reviewed changes) |
LGTM! |
@RonnyPfannschmidt do you want to do a final review ? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The changes look good to me, thanks for doing the work!
src/_pytest/_code/code.py
Outdated
@@ -10,6 +13,7 @@ | |||
import os | |||
from pathlib import Path | |||
import re | |||
from re import Pattern |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Feel free to ignore if it's a hassle: to me match: re.Pattern
would be clearer than match: Pattern
, so I'd drop the from re import Pattern
and use it qualified instead. Same for re.Match
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
pyproject.toml
Outdated
@@ -85,7 +84,7 @@ write_to = "src/_pytest/_version.py" | |||
|
|||
[tool.black] | |||
target-version = [ | |||
'py38', | |||
'py39', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Side note, according to https://black.readthedocs.io/en/stable/usage_and_configuration/the_basics.html#t-target-version, we don't need to configure this because black also looks at requires-python
. It also says we're actually supposed to list all supported versions, oh well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Feel like I could have removed the option too there. I'm not sure if this option is useful since the example they gave in python 3.5. (Also black is only used in doc for blacken-docs afair)
e2f17e0
to
58e2581
Compare
I believe it is OK to merge this, as there is a lot of approvals already, and these changes are a bother to maintain around given they can easily create conflicts. If anybody makes comments after the merge, we can always make a follow up. 👍 |
Closes #12874