Use future annotations #2741
Merged
Use future annotations #2741
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
These are no longer part of the ruleset Signed-off-by: Jussi Kukkonen <[email protected]>
This allows using some more nice annotations from 3.10 while still being compatible with even Python 3.8. These are all annotation changes, should not modify any functionality. Signed-off-by: Jussi Kukkonen <[email protected]>
This reverts commit eb6d82f. The change itself was fine but since the code is otherwise compatible with python 3.8, let's revert this to be compatible for one more release. Signed-off-by: Jussi Kukkonen <[email protected]>
jku
force-pushed
the
use-future-annotations
branch
from
aca4a7e to
687d455
Compare
These are assertions that should happen in production: something is wrong in an unrecoverable way. This is not an API change since no-one should be catching these. Making these AssertionErrors makes them skippable in coverage. Signed-off-by: Jussi Kukkonen <[email protected]>
This makes the results more useful Signed-off-by: Jussi Kukkonen <[email protected]>
jku
force-pushed
the
use-future-annotations
branch
from
c08cafb to
d89c8e6
Compare
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 12086553417Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.
Details
💛 - Coveralls |
Member
Author
|
Ok, there is now a tiny runtime change as well: Repository module changes an exception type to allow for better coverage management. This is not an API change since the exception is not meant to be caught: it really is an assertion purely for defensive programming purposes. |
We're still compatible with 3.8: let's not force 3.9 yet. Signed-off-by: Jussi Kukkonen <[email protected]>
Contributor
|
Thank you @jku |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR achieves two things:
X | Yinstead oftyping.Union[X, Y],X | Noneinstead oftyping.Optional[X],Almost all changes come from ruff autofixes: there should be no functional changes here. There's a small revert included to avoid the one thing that was incompatible with python 3.8.
This was tested by setting "--python-version 3.8" in our mypy invocation... Ideally we should be linting using the lowest supported python version but I did not include that change in this PR