Issue 2378 goal: Get CI to pass without ALLOW_UNICODE on doctests

[ajnelson-nist]

This PR sets the goal state for #2378: Pass CI with a Python2 testing allowance for docstring tests removed.

This PR will be failing CI for a while. My intent is to file separate PRs to main and keep catching this PR up until it eventually passes. I'm aware of at least one patch that will be straightforward, one not so obvious, and am unsure how much further work would be needed.

Fixes #2378

Summary of changes

This PR's sole contribution is expected to be removing ALLOW_UNICODE from pyproject.toml. The rest is expected to be brought in via merging other PRs that lessen the tally of CI failures in this PR.

Checklist

• Checked that there aren't other open pull requests for
  the same change.
• Added tests for any changes that have a runtime impact. (N/A)
• Checked that all tests and type checking passes.
• For changes that have a potential impact on users of this project:
  • Updated relevant documentation to avoid inaccuracies. (N/A)
  • Considered adding additional documentation. (N/A)
  • Considered adding an example in ./examples for new features. (N/A)
  • Considered updating our changelog (CHANGELOG.md).
• Considered granting push permissions to the PR branch,
  so maintainers can fix minor issues and keep your PR up to date.

[aucampia]

Thanks for the PR @ajnelson-nist, would be good to eliminate ALLOW_UNICODE for doctests.

While I do prefer smaller PRs, I would not mind if you did everything for this in one PR for this, as it should not be too difficult to review. But also happy if they go into seperate PRs.

[ajnelson-nist]

@aucampia sounds fine to me. Should #2384 be merged into main in the meanwhile, or should I just merge it into this branch and close that PR?

[ajnelson-nist]

Oh wait, I forgot part of my motivation for carving out other PRs: I have smacked into at leas one issue that will require slightly harder work (handling an inequality operator in Literal vs. URIRef), so I wanted to do the less-thinking-required efforts in other PRs, and focused fixes in other PRs.

[aucampia]

@aucampia sounds fine to me. Should #2384 be merged into main in the meanwhile, or should I just merge it into this branch and close that PR?

I will check it shortly, I think so though.

[aucampia]

@aucampia sounds fine to me. Should #2384 be merged into main in the meanwhile, or should I just merge it into this branch and close that PR?

I will check it shortly, I think so though.

Approved and merged. Apologies for taking so long to get to it, for small PRs like #2384 you should consider asking on Gitter/Matrix. I try to process PRs in order, and sometimes I don't even look at new PRs before older ones are processed, if I knew it was so small I would have processed it sooner.

[aucampia]

PRs to V6 is closed until further notice. See this for more details:

• RDFLib V6 and V7 #2395

[aucampia]

PRs to V6 is closed until further notice. See this for more details:

• RDFLib V6 and V7 #2395

We will be open for PRs again once this is resolved:

• docs: add guidelines for breaking changes #2402

[coveralls]

coverage: 90.941%. remained the same when pulling f19ee60 on ajnelson-nist:issue-2378-goal into cc7350f on RDFLib:main.