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

Use typing.TYPE_CHECKING instead of STATICA_HACK #2239

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

bswck
Copy link

@bswck bswck commented Jan 29, 2025

Fun fact, TYPE_CHECKING was released in mid 2016 and STATICA_HACK was first used here in late 2012.

@auvipy auvipy self-requested a review January 29, 2025 06:55
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 29, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 50.00000% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 81.42%. Comparing base (a0175b0) to head (7f847da).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
kombu/__init__.py 50.00% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2239      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   81.50%   81.42%   -0.09%     
==========================================
  Files          77       77              
  Lines        9524     9532       +8     
  Branches     1152     1153       +1     
==========================================
- Hits         7763     7761       -2     
- Misses       1569     1578       +9     
- Partials      192      193       +1     

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

Copy link
Member

@auvipy auvipy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

restarted the failing python 3.8 build

@bswck
Copy link
Author

bswck commented Jan 29, 2025

I'm kinda confused with the coverage drop.
I skipped the # pragma: no cover comment because of

"if TYPE_CHECKING:",

Oh, ok, it's just -0.08% diff. Most likely due to code size change.

@Nusnus Nusnus self-requested a review February 4, 2025 01:02
Copy link
Member

@auvipy auvipy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

seems OK to me but may be we can defer it to 5.5.x release?

@Nusnus Nusnus added this to the 5.5.1 milestone Feb 11, 2025
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants