Fix smart_open deprecation warning globally

[itayB]

Continued from #2528.

Fixes #2531, closes #2528.

[piskvorky]

This is too wild. The upgrade will need a finer comb, more attention to particular instances, than this mechanical substitution.

[mpenkov]

I agree with @piskvorky that blindly find-replacing is not the way to go here. Let's come up with a more intelligent approach.

You'll see most code accesses smart_open indirectly via the utils module. Perhaps we can contain the changes to that module? That will reduce the risk and make things easier to test.

[itayB]

I can create smart_open function in utils module. This function will call to the new open so we won't have to change in so much places. WDYT?
I will try to do later on (I'm out now)

[piskvorky]

Nah, I'm for replacing it everywhere, consistently, not only in utils. Just take more care with the migration: not every smart_open string ought to become open, plus there's the r vs rb default mode.

I don't think the changeset will be so difficult to warrant some new wrappers. Most (all?) smart_open instances should be pretty straightforward to migrate, at-a-glance.

[itayB]

OK, I'll fix it later on and keep you posted

[itayB]

@mpenkov @piskvorky is there anything else you want me to do in this PR?

[piskvorky]

Thanks a lot @itayB , let's wait for @mpenkov 's review.

[mpenkov]

We're still inconsistent about opening files. I think it's worth consolidating before we proceed with the PR.

[mpenkov]

In the future, please avoid squashing everything together and force-pushing during a review. It makes it difficult for the reviewer to manage the change set. Right now, it's impossible to distinguish code that I've reviewed already, and new code that you've pushed since the previous review.

[itayB]

In the future, please avoid squashing everything together and force-pushing during a review. It makes it difficult for the reviewer to manage the change set. Right now, it's impossible to distinguish code that I've reviewed already, and new code that you've pushed since the previous review.

No problem, sorry about that

[mpenkov]

OK, I think this is ready to merge. @piskvorky Do you have any objections?

[piskvorky]

No objections, nice work @itayB ! This Gensim cleanup was long overdue.

[itayB]

No objections, nice work @itayB ! This Gensim cleanup was long overdue.

thanks @piskvorky !
I think that there's still 1 change requested that is waiting for your approval :-)

[itayB]

Hi @mpenkov @piskvorky, I just want to make sure; Is there anything that you expect me to do or should I just wait for you to merge this?

[mpenkov]

Please wait for us to merge. Thank you for your contribution and your patience.

[mpenkov]

OK, merged. @itayB Thank you for taking care of this!