Skip to content
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

Add unsupported version checks for major 3.11 and 3.12 features #9792

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Jul 16, 2024

Conversation

jacobtylerwalls
Copy link
Member

Type of Changes

Type
✨ New feature

Description

Closes #9791

@jacobtylerwalls jacobtylerwalls added Enhancement ✨ Improvement to a component py-version labels Jul 14, 2024
@jacobtylerwalls jacobtylerwalls added this to the 3.3.0 milestone Jul 14, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 14, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.79%. Comparing base (a48cd4c) to head (390c3b4).
Report is 125 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9792      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.80%   95.79%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         174      174              
  Lines       18883    18906      +23     
==========================================
+ Hits        18090    18111      +21     
- Misses        793      795       +2     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
pylint/checkers/unsupported_version.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 3 files with indirect coverage changes

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@Pierre-Sassoulas Pierre-Sassoulas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great idea !

pylint/checkers/unsupported_version.py Show resolved Hide resolved

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

DanielNoord
DanielNoord previously approved these changes Jul 15, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@DanielNoord DanielNoord left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we want functional tests for these?

@@ -1 +1 @@
string = "\z" # [anomalous-backslash-in-string]
string = "\z" # [syntax-error]
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should probably move these then? As this will look weird in our documentation.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure what the best solution is.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Perhaps add a details.rst explaining that this is because of our CI?

Copy link
Member

@Pierre-Sassoulas Pierre-Sassoulas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should cover the new code with tests. Regarding the doc not raising the right message anymore, maybe we need run the CI for each supported interpreters and add skipif on the one that are not relevant (with the same configuration than for functional test min_pyver / max_pyver) ?

@jacobtylerwalls
Copy link
Member Author

Will come back and add some tests.

Regarding the doc not raising the right message anymore, maybe we need run the CI for each supported interpreters and add skipif on the one that are not relevant (with the same configuration than for functional test min_pyver / max_pyver) ?

I wouldn't object, but I'm not volunteering to work on it in the near term.

This comment has been minimized.

DanielNoord
DanielNoord previously approved these changes Jul 16, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@DanielNoord DanielNoord left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess we're still missing some tests but I would be okay with merging already. This seems like a useful new feature.

Copy link
Contributor

🤖 According to the primer, this change has no effect on the checked open source code. 🤖🎉

This comment was generated for commit 390c3b4

@jacobtylerwalls jacobtylerwalls merged commit e2c15e3 into main Jul 16, 2024
40 checks passed
@jacobtylerwalls jacobtylerwalls deleted the unsupported-311-312-features branch July 16, 2024 12:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Enhancement ✨ Improvement to a component py-version
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add check for using major 3.11 and 3.12 features with lower --py-version
3 participants