DEV: Delete tox.ini

[j-t-1]

Add Python 3.11, 3.12, remove 3.6

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.14%. Comparing base (a195cb3) to head (ab7c6ff).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2713   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.14%   95.14%           
=======================================
  Files          51       51           
  Lines        8547     8547           
  Branches     1703     1703           
=======================================
  Hits         8132     8132           
  Misses        261      261           
  Partials      154      154           

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

[stefan6419846]

I am not going to merge this for now to allow discussions on whether we actually still need this file - our CI does not need it.

[pubpub-zz]

is this file used for coverage analysis ?

[stefan6419846]

AFAIK no, although it seems like we have a section about testing with tox in our testing docs. The coverage configuration is

pypdf/pyproject.toml

Lines 85 to 112 in 683aeca

	[tool.coverage.run]
	source = ["pypdf"]
	branch = true
	[tool.coverage.report]
	# Regexes for lines to exclude from consideration
	exclude_lines = [
	# Have to re-enable the standard pragma
	"pragma: no cover",
	"@overload",
	"deprecated",
	# Don't complain about type-checking code not being hit by unit tests
	"if TYPE_CHECKING",
	# Don't complain about missing debug-only code:
	"def __repr__",
	"def __str__",
	"if self\\.debug",
	# Don't complain if tests don't hit defensive assertion code:
	"raise AssertionError",
	"raise NotImplementedError",
	# Don't complain if non-runnable code isn't run:
	"if 0:",
	"if __name__ == .__main__.:",
	]

[pubpub-zz]

what about preparing a PR to remove the file, merge and check if all ok and revert if observing side effect ?
@MartinThoma any ideas about ?

[pubpub-zz]

@MartinThoma
+1 ?

[j-t-1]

@stefan6419846 I deleted this accidentally, and then restored it.

If you want to get a coverage report that considers the Python version specific
code, you can run tox. [testing.md]

It probably is not in the automated testing because it is time consuming to run (although I have not tested this!).
We could keep tox.ini and run it before releases.

[stefan6419846]

We are not using tox for CI, but GitHub Actions and their workflow matrix, which basically is the same. IMHO having the separate CI jobs instead of letting tox iterate over all Python installations drastically improves readability.

tox might be used for local development purposes, but I would argue that most of us do not want to test multiple Python versions locally or do not even have multiple Python versions installed, thus rendering it more or less useless.

[j-t-1]

We are not using tox for CI, but GitHub Actions and their workflow matrix, which basically is the same. IMHO having the separate CI jobs instead of letting tox iterate over all Python installations drastically improves readability.

tox might be used for local development purposes, but I would argue that most of us do not want to test multiple Python versions locally or do not even have multiple Python versions installed, thus rendering it more or less useless.

Makes sense. If others agree we should delete tox.ini; if we keep it, then this PR would be okay.

[pubpub-zz]

I agree : let's change the PR to delete tox.ini