Skip to content

refactor: move off python 3.10#603

Merged
jakelorocco merged 4 commits intomainfrom
jal/remove-310
Mar 9, 2026
Merged

refactor: move off python 3.10#603
jakelorocco merged 4 commits intomainfrom
jal/remove-310

Conversation

@jakelorocco
Copy link
Contributor

@jakelorocco jakelorocco commented Mar 6, 2026

Misc PR

Type of PR

  • Bug Fix
  • New Feature
  • Documentation
  • Other

Description

  • Link to Issue: Fixes

Testing

  • Tests added to the respective file if code was changed
  • New code has 100% coverage if code as added
  • Ensure existing tests and github automation passes (a maintainer will kick off the github automation when the rest of the PR is populated)

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Mar 6, 2026

The PR description has been updated. Please fill out the template for your PR to be reviewed.

@mergify
Copy link

mergify bot commented Mar 6, 2026

Merge Protections

Your pull request matches the following merge protections and will not be merged until they are valid.

🟢 Enforce conventional commit

Wonderful, this rule succeeded.

Make sure that we follow https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/

  • title ~= ^(fix|feat|docs|style|refactor|perf|test|build|ci|chore|revert|release)(?:\(.+\))?:

@jakelorocco
Copy link
Contributor Author

We will have to also update our github settings to require 3.13 passing and not require 3.10 status check. Will update them immediately before merging this PR.

@jakelorocco jakelorocco marked this pull request as ready for review March 6, 2026 20:06
@jakelorocco jakelorocco requested a review from a team as a code owner March 6, 2026 20:06
Copy link
Contributor

@ajbozarth ajbozarth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As a minimal first step this looks ok, I didn't test it though.

As a follow up I'd suggest working with Bob or Claude to track down instances in our code where we may have made compromises in implementation to support 3.10 and update or remove them.

@jakelorocco
Copy link
Contributor Author

As a minimal first step this looks ok, I didn't test it though.

As a follow up I'd suggest working with Bob or Claude to track down instances in our code where we may have made compromises in implementation to support 3.10 and update or remove them.

That's fair. When I searched, I found two instances that were in examples, but they didn't make any real difference in the code (just caused us to use enums instead of a list of literals).

I will do a search with claude and report back.

@jakelorocco
Copy link
Contributor Author

jakelorocco commented Mar 6, 2026

Asked claude for suggestions and implemented them. Tests still pass. Thank you for the suggestion!

Copy link
Contributor

@ajbozarth ajbozarth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, we can include any other improvements as we find them :)

(only reviewed code, did not test)

@ajbozarth
Copy link
Contributor

Was doing some development and ran into this warning when running ruff:

warning: The following rules have been removed and ignoring them has no effect:
    - PD901

If I remember correctly when I was adding global lint I tried to remove this to get rid of the warning and it cause CI to fail because it was needed for 3.10 but removed for 3.11 and later. You should see if we can safely remove PD901 from the lint config list now

@jakelorocco jakelorocco merged commit 26da73c into main Mar 9, 2026
5 checks passed
@jakelorocco jakelorocco deleted the jal/remove-310 branch March 9, 2026 19:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants