add parallel tox, remove python 2.7 support [DEVINFRA-771] #1152
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
silverjam
force-pushed
the
silverjam/tox
branch
24 times, most recently
from
b23292b to
5399f72
Compare
jungleraptor
approved these changes
May 25, 2022
silverjam
changed the title
silverjam
changed the title
Yes, updated the PR description and summary |
adrian-kong
approved these changes
May 25, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
@swift-nav/devinfra
We can introduce tox parallel mode to speed up the test-python target in libsbp, but we’ll need to upgrade the GHA job to use Ubuntu 20.04 to get a tox that’s new enough to run it
(Apparently) this exposes some bugs with Python 2.7 support in Ubuntu, this works locally but could not figure out a fix for GHA… so I propose we try to drop support for this again, Python 2 has been obsolete/discontinued for 2 years now. Removing support for Python 2.7
and Python 3.5opens the door for us to introduce type annotations to our Python code.API compatibility
Does this change introduce a API compatibility risk? Does not introduce compatibility issues in SBP messages or the API but drops support for Python 2.7
and Python 3.5(which are both obsolete).API compatibility plan
If the above is "Yes", please detail the compatibility (or migration) plan: This is a "wait and see" compatibility plan, the last customer we had that was using Python 2 was able to migrate to Python 3 after some prodding, so hopefully we'll OK this time around.
JIRA Reference
https://swift-nav.atlassian.net/browse/DEVINFRA-771