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

Decide how to backport 3.7 async context management support #12

Closed
ncoghlan opened this issue Mar 8, 2017 · 16 comments
Closed

Decide how to backport 3.7 async context management support #12

ncoghlan opened this issue Mar 8, 2017 · 16 comments

Comments

@ncoghlan
Copy link
Collaborator

ncoghlan commented Mar 8, 2017

Python 3.7 added async/await support to the contextlib module (e.g. asyncontextmanager and AsyncExitStack), and then Python 3.10 added more (e.g. aclosing).

This raised the question of how to backport those features to 3.6+ (the first version with support for yield inside async def).

The answer turned out to be "procrastinate on the question for 4+ years, so it became feasible to simply drop support for Python 3.5 and earlier, and use the async generator code as-is".

(Issue description updated Jun 2021 to describe what actually happened, rather than the more complicated alternatives I was considering to allow adding the new async features without dropping support for Python 3.5 and earlier)

@sashgorokhov
Copy link

Can't imagine how you can manage this to work on 3.5 without yield support inside coroutines. I'll subscribe to this thread to see any useful ideas for that.

@sashgorokhov
Copy link

But supporting at least 3.6 would be great. I am already using personal package for this, and could provide a PR for asynccontextmanager

@JelleZijlstra
Copy link

JelleZijlstra commented Mar 8, 2017

Like Nick, I'd prefer keeping a single package. Having fewer packages with similar purposes makes it easier for people to decide what package to install.

The implementation would probably involve making contextlib2 into a package, organized something like this:

  • _contextlib.py has all the current code
  • _contextlib_async.py has @asynccontextmanager
  • __init__.py does from _contextlib import * and if sys.version >= (3, 6): from _contextlib_async import asynccontextmanager. Thus, _contextlib_async would only be imported on Python versions where it's syntactically valid.

Yes, this probably can't be backported to 3.5 (maybe using https://github.com/njsmith/async_generator would work?). However, other future async enhancements to contextmanager, like AsyncExitStack, could be backported to 3.5 (and even earlier if you want to use yield from).

@sashgorokhov
Copy link

Using another libraries with their own logic ( yield_ ) will make it a pain in python 3.7 to migrate from this package to a standart one. Also, it won't be a clear solution for end-users

@ncoghlan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ncoghlan commented Mar 8, 2017

For now, I've reworded the issue to just target 3.6+. However, we can keep the possibility of supporting earlier versions in mind as we consider possible solutions.

  • the first option would be something like @JelleZijlstra suggested, only with the "minimum compatible version" files named after the earliest version that can import them (_contextlib_needs35.py, _contextlib_needs36.py, etc). I think this is the cleanest approach from an install time and runtime perspective, but the trickiest from the point of view of actually merging changes from the stdlib into the backport (but, as noted, we don't need to do that very often)

  • the second option that comes to mind would be to include full copies of the versions of interest (so contextlib2._contextlib_37.py would be an actual pre-release copy of the 3.7 version of the module). Aside from the inevitable code duplication, the main argument against this is that it wouldn't help with cases like AsyncExitStack, where that's likely to be compatible with 3.5, even though asynccontextmanager will need 3.6. That's enough of a downside that I don't think any simplification of future maintenance could make it worthwhile to accept as a limitation

@njsmith
Copy link

njsmith commented Jun 15, 2017

FWIW, I use a home grown version of this all the time on 3.5, via https://github.com/njsmith/async_generator. For example, trio.open_nursery is implemented this way. The asynccontextmanager code itself doesn't need to define async generators, so there's no trouble importing it on 3.5; it just depends on the user to provide something that quacks like an async generator function, and it's up to them to decide if they want to use async_generator or whatever to make that function. (Why do I care about 3.5 support? PyPy.)

This code is sometimes a bit annoying to maintain, so I'd be happy to delegate to contextlib2 :-).

OTOH there might be a few challenges. The homegrown changes in my version are:

I don't think these are showstoppers, just figured put them on the radar.

@sorcio
Copy link

sorcio commented May 7, 2018

FYI, since the only piece I was missing from async_generator was an AsyncExitStack and since I only need Python 3.6, I packaged a "backport" for 3.5+ (more or less a verbatim copy from 3.7) here https://github.com/sorcio/async_exit_stack

I'd be happy to help with a proper backport.

@ncoghlan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ncoghlan commented Jun 8, 2018

I think between @sorcio's async_exit_stack module and the simple passage of time, the idea of copying in the Python 3.7 version of the modules as contextlib2._contextlib_36_compat.py, moving the current code that implements stdlib APIs to contextlib2._contextlib_26_compat.py, and then populating contextlib2.__init__.py with code to choose the newest importable option and then add the extra contextlib2 specific backwards compatibility code is a lot more viable now than it was when I first opened this issue.

While there a few APIs it would be nice to extract and make universally available, that could be considered as a separate issue after the initial 3.6+ option was implemented.

@ncoghlan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

With @jayvdb submitting the synchronous enhancements as a separate PR (which I'm about to release as 0.6.0) that opens up a new alternative: what if contextlib2 0.7.0 were to just drop support for all versions prior to 3.6, leaving users of old Python versions on 0.6.0 indefinitely?

@graingert
Copy link
Member

@ncoghlan does the Python 3.5 EOL change anything?

@ncoghlan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@graingert It makes me even happier with the idea of 0.7.0 being 3.6+ only, which means it should be possible to just sync the latest version over from CPython 3.10 (modulo keeping the contextlib2 APIs that never graduated to the stdlib version)

@ncoghlan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I've merged the changes from #29 (switch to CalVer, set the minimum version to 3.6), clearing the way for the Python 3.10 version to be sync'ed over. With the 2.x compatibility code gone, I'm hoping that will now be a lot simpler than it used to be.

ncoghlan added a commit to ncoghlan/contextlib2 that referenced this issue Jun 26, 2021
@ncoghlan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

PR is up #32

CI mostly looks good, just need to check what's up with PyPy3

ncoghlan added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 26, 2021
…-3.10

Issue #12:  sync module from CPython 3.10
@ncoghlan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

As far as I can tell, the PyPy3 issue was a bug in the stdlib test suite (assuming the use of a refcounted GC): https://bugs.python.org/issue44515

CPython PR submitted at python/cpython#26910

@ncoghlan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Bah, forgot to include the docs updates for the new APIs

@ncoghlan ncoghlan reopened this Jun 26, 2021
ncoghlan added a commit to ncoghlan/contextlib2 that referenced this issue Jun 26, 2021
ncoghlan added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 26, 2021
…lib-docs

Issue #12: Sync API documentation from Python 3.10
@ncoghlan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

OK, docs are also updated now.

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

No branches or pull requests

6 participants