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

Release 3.10.0 (attempt 2) #8552

Merged
merged 24 commits into from
Jul 30, 2024
Merged

Release 3.10.0 (attempt 2) #8552

merged 24 commits into from
Jul 30, 2024

Conversation

bdraco
Copy link
Member

@bdraco bdraco commented Jul 30, 2024

release tracking issue #8529

New release PR to address the feedback in #8550

@psf-chronographer psf-chronographer bot added the bot:chronographer:provided There is a change note present in this PR label Jul 30, 2024
@bdraco bdraco changed the title Restore CHANGES part 1 Release 3.10.0 (attempt 2) Jul 30, 2024
@bdraco bdraco mentioned this pull request Jul 30, 2024
@bdraco bdraco added the bot:chronographer:skip This PR does not need to include a change note label Jul 30, 2024
@bdraco bdraco mentioned this pull request Jul 30, 2024
3 tasks
@bdraco bdraco marked this pull request as ready for review July 30, 2024 18:48
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 30, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.57%. Comparing base (fc201e8) to head (0bb8da0).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             3.10    #8552   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.57%   97.57%           
=======================================
  Files         108      108           
  Lines       33634    33634           
  Branches     4034     4034           
=======================================
  Hits        32819    32819           
  Misses        594      594           
  Partials      221      221           
Flag Coverage Δ
CI-GHA 97.48% <ø> (ø)
OS-Linux 97.15% <ø> (ø)
OS-Windows 94.69% <ø> (ø)
OS-macOS 96.81% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
Py-3.10.11 96.91% <ø> (ø)
Py-3.10.14 96.87% <ø> (ø)
Py-3.11.9 97.11% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
Py-3.12.4 97.22% <ø> (ø)
Py-3.8.10 94.43% <ø> (ø)
Py-3.8.18 96.77% <ø> (ø)
Py-3.9.13 96.92% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
Py-3.9.19 96.92% <ø> (+0.04%) ⬆️
Py-pypy7.3.16 96.45% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
VM-macos 96.81% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
VM-ubuntu 97.15% <ø> (ø)
VM-windows 94.69% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@bdraco
Copy link
Member Author

bdraco commented Jul 30, 2024

Looks good now. Let's give this another shot.

@bdraco bdraco merged commit 7f29851 into 3.10 Jul 30, 2024
33 of 34 checks passed
@bdraco bdraco deleted the release/v3.10.0_take_2 branch July 30, 2024 19:24
it is also a good idea to ensure that any :func:`asyncio.shield` calls are replaced with
:func:`aiojobs.aiohttp.shield`.

Please read the updated documentation on these points: \
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@bdraco here's the preview: https://aiohttp--8552.org.readthedocs.build/en/8552/changes.html#removals-and-backward-incompatible-breaking-changes. This didn't change the render. The right fix would be to have a list with leading dashes or asterisks.

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 missing something as the render looks fine to me
Screenshot 2024-07-31 at 7 48 36 PM

Maybe its my screen size?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, it's your screen. Inspect with DevTools and you'll see that it's a paragraph with no line breaks.
aiohttp-rm-changelog

FWIW, \ in RST has a rather weird meaning. Sometimes, I use it to escape invisible spaces in between bits of syntax.

P.S. I'd rather have this generate <li>s.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(that's at 200% zoom in Firefox)

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 did try leading dashes but that didn't work either as its a list inside of a list

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It would work, but might need an extra empty line after :. Feel free to ask me for RST advice next time — I have some experience with it and Sphinx internals+extensions.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Here's an example of a nested list that does work and is still a part of said changelog document: https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/pull/8066/files#diff-bd97a3018f85ae60eb7b42978db8f4ae548d3090cc95bc3e8d64f1d825d4c5ee

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks. That helps.

@@ -314,7 +304,7 @@ Miscellaneous internal changes



- Restore :py:class:`~aiohttp.resolver.AsyncResolver` to be the default resolver. -- by :user:`bdraco`.
- Restored :py:class:`~aiohttp.resolver.AsyncResolver` to be the default resolver. -- by :user:`bdraco`.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That period in the middle could've been avoided.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do you think it’s worth adjusting before 3.10.1, or should we leave it as is?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's up to you. I know that it takes a lot of energy to make the change log nice. There's more things that could be fixed, like unlinked/unhighlited function mentions and perhaps other inconsistencies. I'd fix all of them if we were to work on improving it more systemically.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bot:chronographer:provided There is a change note present in this PR bot:chronographer:skip This PR does not need to include a change note
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants