Support Python 3.12

[maresb]

Closes #472

Motivation for these changes

Get the latest Python goodness

Implementation details

Basically just 3.11→3.12

Checklist

• Explain motivation and implementation 👆
• Make sure that the pre-commit linting/style checks pass.
• Link relevant issues, preferably in nice commit messages.
• The commits correspond to relevant logical changes. Note that if they don't, we will rewrite/rebase/squash the git history before merging.
• Are the changes covered by tests and docstrings?
• Fill out the short summary sections 👇

Major / Breaking Changes

• ...

New features

• PyTensor now works with Python 3.12

Bugfixes

• ...

Documentation

• ...

Maintenance

• ...

[ricardoV94]

What the heck is the pre-commit complaining about?

[maresb]

Switching from #581 to #586 to see what happens

[maresb]

Beautiful... we can get mypy to pass on 3.9 or 3.12 but not both. Maybe there's a way to get mypy to ignore unused type ignores...

[maresb]

Ok, I've rebased on the latest main. I think there's still a Conda dependency conflict though.

[maresb]

There is no mkl-service build for Python 3.12. This seems pretty blocking.

See:
https://github.com/conda-forge/pytensor-suite-feedstock/blob/0671c8077973cfb8062aeffd0f131981067757f9/recipe/meta.yaml#L96-L99

[ricardoV94]

At least we are narrowing down on what the blockers are!

[maresb]

I triggered a bot-rerun of the mkl-service feedstock, so hopefully in some hours there will be some movement on that front. The other possibility would be user-managed BLAS, but that feels like a pretty drastic change.

[maresb]

I fixed mkl-service upstream. Let's see if we get further now.

[maresb]

Now we are hitting numba/numba#9197. The Numba release canddate is under review, so hopefully it will get released soon! (We may want to test.)

[ricardoV94]

Numba is an optional dependency, we can just not test it in the 3.12 run, like we did for a long time with 3.11

Numba releases and "soon" don't usually go together

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (ccc08ba) 80.92% compared to head (69319ef) 80.87%.
Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #488      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   80.92%   80.87%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         162      162              
  Lines       46627    46680      +53     
  Branches    11399    11408       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits        37732    37751      +19     
- Misses       6667     6699      +32     
- Partials     2228     2230       +2     

Files	Coverage Δ
pytensor/tensor/shape.py	93.15% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 6 files with indirect coverage changes

[ricardoV94]

Just need to remove the old Check code style (3.10) | (3.11) from the Github branch protection settings, which we can do after merging the PR. Otherwise, anything missing @maresb?

[maresb]

Woah, crazy! Looks like I got it!

Just need to remove the old Check code style (3.10) | (3.11) from the Github branch protection settings

I don't understand ☝️ but probably I don't need to.

All good from my side! 😁

[ricardoV94]

I was referring to the "required" CI tests that no longer exist:

[ricardoV94]

@maresb do you want me to squash and merge or rebase and merge?

[maresb]

I feel like my commits are reasonably structured, so assuming you don't have any criticisms I'd prefer a rebase + merge.

[ricardoV94]

I feel like my commits are reasonably structured, so assuming you don't have any criticisms I'd prefer a rebase + merge.

Done, I was just double checking!