Update to PyO3 0.22

[HenningHolmDE]

trafficstars

This bumps the PyO3 dependency to the new 0.22 release.

As PyNativeType (used in src/de.rs) has now been moved behind the gil-refs feature, I added that feature to the list of PyO3 feature dependencies. As Clone (used in tests/test_custom_types.rs) has now been moved behind the py-clone feature, I added that feature to the list of PyO3 feature dependencies for development.

However, if you would rather go down a different route with the upstream changes than just adding the required features (e.g. removing the corresponding deprecated functions instead), I'm happy to change the PR accordingly.

[HenningHolmDE]

As it turns out, simply enabling gil-refs seems not the right way to go, as it introduces trait bounds to HasPyGilRef for downstream projects as well.

I will see, if I can come up with a better way.

Switched to draft until this is resolved.

[HenningHolmDE]

Second try. I now reverted using the gil-refs feature and removed all code that relied on PyO3 functionality that has been moved behind the gil-refs feature gate in the new release.

I'm sorry for the seesaw and hope that the change makes more sense now.

[juntyr]

I personally think that as long as Pyo3 still has the pre-bound methods, pythonize should probably have them as well.

What about adding a gil-refs feature to pythonize that gates the old methods and enables that feature inside Pyo3?

On the other hand I can also understand waning to reduce the maintenance burden earlier in this smaller helper crate.

[HenningHolmDE]

I personally think that as long as Pyo3 still has the pre-bound methods, pythonize should probably have them as well.

What about adding a gil-refs feature to pythonize that gates the old methods and enables that feature inside Pyo3?

I would agree, adding a gil-refs feature seems like the better solution over removing the code as long as the required functions are still available in PyO3.

On the other hand I can also understand waning to reduce the maintenance burden earlier in this smaller helper crate.

Also, this would extend the CI effort a bit, as we would have to ensure building all feature "combinations" does work.

Anyone else thoughts on this?

[deedy5]

up

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 94.04762% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 83.83%. Comparing base (30ce873) to head (e7cf258).

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/ser.rs	93.97%	5 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #66      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   81.25%   83.83%   +2.58%     
==========================================
  Files           3        3              
  Lines        1152     1169      +17     
  Branches     1152     1169      +17     
==========================================
+ Hits          936      980      +44     
+ Misses        167      140      -27     
  Partials       49       49              

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[davidhewitt]

Sorry for the long delay here. Thanks for the PR and getting this moving! I think it's ok to remove the gil-refs methods as we'll be removing them in the next PyO3 release anyway.

I'll get this merged and released ASAP. Have pushed some commits to finish off & fix conflicts.

[HenningHolmDE]

Thanks for your reply and no worries about the delay. I guess, most of us are doing this in our spare time. ❤️

If you run into anything that needs further work, just let me now, I'm happy to support.