bpo-42392: Mention loop removal in whatsnew for 3.10 #24256
Conversation
|
Personally, I feel that we should mention that dropping support for 3.6 altogether in user code is always an option - 3.6's expected last security release is in 2021-12, and 3.10's release date is 2021-10-04. So when 3.10's out, only 2 months are left until 3.6's expected EOL arrives anyways. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the PR @Fidget-Spinner! This definitely is worth including to provide users with more information about the removal of the loop parameter throughout many asyncio functions. However, I'd like to suggest a few changes to make it more specific and give users some context about why it was removed.
Also, sorry in advance if I'm slow to respond, as I'm presently still on an open source break. I just considered this issue important enough to provide some feedback given the widespread impact on asyncio users.
|
A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated. Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase |
Doc/whatsnew/3.10.rst
Outdated
| async def foo(loop): | ||
| await asyncio.sleep(loop=loop) | ||
|
|
||
| Can *usually* be replaced with this:: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are there actually cases where this example is not the solution and another example should be provided? The APIs that I'm familiar with that got changed would be solved by this in every case, but maybe there are some that require a different fix?
If not, I'd remove the *usually* so there's no confusion about what else might need to be done.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It specifically doesn't apply if the user wants to utilize an event loop other than the currently running one. But, for 90% of use cases, the user will want to use the running event loop anyways (that's largely why the loop arg was removed in the first place). I expanded upon this in another comment.
Co-Authored-By: Kyle Stanley <[email protected]>
@aeros Thank you so much for the reviews! They were extremely illuminating and constructive :).
No worries, please enjoy your break! |
|
For bedevere-bot: I have made the requested changes; please review again. Thank you! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for making the suggested changes @Fidget-Spinner! I very much like the way the motivation section succinctly reads and think readers will benefit greatly from the additional information. :-)
I just have a couple very minor nits and then I can proceed with merging.
Co-Authored-By: Kyle Stanley <[email protected]>
@vstinner [noticed on python-dev](https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/thread/O3T7SK3BGMFWMLCQXDODZJSBL42AUWTR/) that there is no what's new or porting entry for removal of asyncio ``loop`` parameter. This patch adds a basic guide. Co-Authored-By: Kyle Stanley <[email protected]>
@vstinner noticed on python-dev that there is no what's new or porting entry for removal of asyncio
loopparameter.This patch adds a basic guide.
Co-Authored-By: Kyle Stanley [email protected]
https://bugs.python.org/issue42392
Automerge-Triggered-By: GH:aeros