Drop python 3.8 support #12875
Drop python 3.8 support #12875
Conversation
| 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.
Not sure what to do here, advise welcome
There was a problem hiding this comment.
#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.
psf-chronographer
bot
added
the
bot:chronographer:provided
|
Changed the configuration of the repo so |
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
import AbstractSet => from collections.abc import Set as AbstractSet and others
Pierre-Sassoulas
force-pushed
the
drop-python3.8
branch
from
14b36ce
to
3f03eda
Compare
Pierre-Sassoulas
changed the title
| @@ -53,6 +53,8 @@ repos: | |||
| rev: v3.17.0 | |||
| hooks: | |||
| - id: pyupgrade | |||
| args: | |||
| - "--py39-plus" | |||
| stages: [manual] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is this manual, by the way?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here's the full discussion about it : #12418, the gist of it is that ruff does what pyupgrade does and the two are not out of sync often enough to make launching pyupgrade everytime worth it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, interesting. I'd suggest that this is a good reason to put a code comment in this place :)
|
@Teri53 @TeriThetha please stop spamming. |
|
@nicoddemus @RonnyPfannschmidt @The-Compiler can anybody ban the spammer, please? |
|
Sorry won't happen again |
|
🙄 c'mon... |
|
Blocked. |
| - name: "windows-py38" | ||
| python: "3.8" | ||
| os: windows-latest | ||
| tox_env: "py38-unittestextras" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i believe this one need a python 3.9 variant as well,
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've been meaning to ask why this only uses inclusions? Usually, combining them with builtin matrix generation works better..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
im not sure what you mean, i believe we had a number of special/slow envs that are only used for very specific tests (freeze, pypy, pluggy) and as far as i know this was the best working solution known at the time - if there is something better, i'd love to see that
as far as i understand/remember the builtin matrix would have generated a variant product, when we want a subset
Refs #12874