Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
[MRG] Replace DeprecationWarning with FutureWarning #15080
This PR replaces
This fixes the custom filter issue raised in #9857 (custom filter are bad basically)
The downside is that users who are already ignoring the
There's no backward compatibility guarantee regarding warnings, but if this PR gets merged, we should make sure to let users know as much as possible
Also we should give an update on this SO question
EDIT: changed name from
EDIT: changed again to raise
I'm wondering why we do
The unless triggered by code in
On the other hand, we have:
I'm in favor of using
Packages who depend on
Also, we wan move a bunch of our
I agree our DeprecationWarnings should probably have been FutureWarnings in the first place. I'm OK for switching to FutureWarnings.
However I don't think we want to worry about PendingFutureWarnings (at least for now, and definitely not for this PR, let's keep things simple).
Same for DeprecationWarning: these are for Python developers, not for library users/maintainers. I don't think we should ever mess with those.
The options are:
Is the "deprecated in 0.22" actionable information? I am going under the assumption that "no one reads warnings", so making the warning only include actionable information is a little nicer. "Remove in 0.24" -> better do something about this before 0.24.
I have no idea why that joblib warning is showing up :/