Replace calls to methods removed in Django v4

[MisterGlass]

If I'm running the tests correctly this seems to be all that's needed to resolve #1274

[MisterGlass]

I wasn't running the tests correctly. I ran them manually and found a few more easy changes.

I could use help adding it to the tox config & github actions properly.

[MisterGlass]

I updated the tox config & github actions, you can see the various versions tested here: https://github.com/MisterGlass/graphene-django/actions/runs/1533043305

[tim-schilling]

@MisterGlass Shouldn't this be against main rather than the v2 branch? The latest version of graphene-django is 3.X

[MisterGlass]

@MisterGlass Shouldn't this be against main rather than the v2 branch? The latest version of graphene-django is 3.X

The latest release on pypi is 2.15.0. When I started this PR I noticed the 3.0 beta hadn't been updated in a year, so I focused on a 2.x revision.

I'm not sure what state the 3.0 work is in (I'm a new contributor here) but I'd be happy to help make similar changes to it.

[tim-schilling]

Ah, I did not see that. You can ignore my comment then.

[MisterGlass]

edit oops

[ulgens]

@MisterGlass Shouldn't this be against main rather than the v2 branch? The latest version of graphene-django is 3.X

I agree with this. With the previous Django - Python version update PR, the majority agreed it's too big of an update and it should be part of 3.0. Considering how long it took to release 3.0, i don't think it was the best decision but it's done. At this point, the 2.x version is legacy and I wouldn't expect any new version on that.

About the 3.0 release, I pinged people on Slack a couple of days ago but no one responded yet. Still, I think it's better to contribute to the main branch.

[MisterGlass]

Django v4 is now officially released. This library is now the only thing preventing me (and I'm sure others) from upgrading.

The changes I made are minimal, aside from the test configuration I changed 11 lines, replacing deprecated functions with their new equivalents. I really can't see how 11 lines is too big of an update.

There is no mention in the documentation that I can find saying 2.x is legacy & there will be no updates. Was I supposed to be running the beta this whole time? If 2.x is legacy and 3.x is beta, then there is no current maintained version of graphene-django and I need to fork or migrate ASAP.

edit I really truly would be happy to contribute similar changes to 3.x, I just think the project should do this 2.x release so users can upgrade without waiting for 3.x to be finished.

[ulgens]

If 2.x is legacy and 3.x is beta, then there is no current maintained version of graphene-django and I need to fork or migrate ASAP.

I don't want to discourage anyone from contributing but I'd be lying if I say this is not the case.

[tim-schilling]

@ulgens, what's blocking us from doing a dual release of 2.x and 3.x?

[ulgens]

@ulgens, what's blocking us from doing a dual release of 2.x and 3.x?

I'd say nothing is stopping us, but also I'm not in a place to call it.

[zbyte64]

We have not abandon our commitment to keep shipping updates to v3, but we also have a commitment to keep up with Django releases. This PR should be accepted once it introduces a version bump (ie 2.16.0) to reflect the drop in support for Django v1. See graphene_django/__init__.py for the source of the version number.

We will commit to porting this PR to v3, but I won't be able to get to it right now. Please do us a favor and submit another PR for the main branch, even if it is broken.

[tim-schilling]

We will commit to porting this PR to v3, but I won't be able to get to it right now. Please do us a favor and submit another PR for the main branch, even if it is broken.

This should be done with #1281, though I do need to investigate something regarding force_text.

Edit, looks like 1281 does handle the force_text -> force_str. Seems good.

[caiocarrara]

@zbyte64 sorry for the inconvenient ping. This is just a friendly reminder about this PR. Since your request for changes, MisterGlass updated the version. It would be great to have your approval here.

[jyotendra]

@zbyte64 can you plz review the changes and approve the merge. Seems like it's blocking issue#1284 since long.

[insomniac34]

Bump to get this merged in :)

[ulgens]

Hey everyone, thanks for keeping this alive. I have the permission to merge it if we think it's ready to be merged, but I'd like to have the test matrix cleaned first (removing old versions and simplifying it) If anyone is up for that, please go on. Otherwise, I'll try to handle it as soon as I found some spare time.

[MisterGlass]

I'm happy to remove/simplify whatever you think is appropriate for this release, I had originally tried to keep as much compatibility testing as possible.

[jeremystretch]

Hi @ulgens! Is there a specific subset of the matrix you had in mind? Here's what it looks like currently in the PR:

Django	2.2	3.0	3.1	3.2	4.0
Python 3.6	x	x	x	x
Python 3.7	x	x	x	x
Python 3.8	x	x	x	x	x
Python 3.9	x	x	x	x	x
Python 3.10				x	x

IMO there's a strong argument for dropping Python 3.6 support as it's been officially deprecated. It might also be reasonable to omit Django 2.2 if we need to further simplify, although that is technically still supported until April.

[ulgens]

I'd recommend removing 3.6 but keeping 2.2 for now.

[ulgens]

In any case, i'll just go and merge this. It took so long and I feel responsible for everyone. We can fix whatever left, after the merge.

This PR is not ready to release as 2.16, but i'm merging it because it blocks the pipeline.

[nextmat]

Thanks for getting this merged! Just to clarify, what is the likely release plan for this?

[ulgens]

Thanks for getting this merged! Just to clarify, what is the likely release plan for this?

I can't really there is one, but I plan to do some more cleaning under #1298 first.