Skip to content

Conversation

@MatthieuDartiailh
Copy link
Owner

@MatthieuDartiailh MatthieuDartiailh commented Dec 4, 2025

Closes #178

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Dec 4, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.96970% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 95.16%. Comparing base (5229b3e) to head (2d9a0fd).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/bytecode/concrete.py 75.00% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #179   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.16%   95.16%           
=======================================
  Files           7        7           
  Lines        2025     2028    +3     
  Branches      452      449    -3     
=======================================
+ Hits         1927     1930    +3     
  Misses         54       54           
  Partials       44       44           

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@MatthieuDartiailh
Copy link
Owner Author

Running the benchmark found in #172 does not show a significant improvement (on one run it looks faster on average but the variance is large).

@P403n1x87
Copy link
Contributor

@MatthieuDartiailh thanks for putting this together and apologies for the late reply but I've not had much time to look into this. It sounds like there are no measurable performance improvements from this, but I think there still is the advantage of cleaner coding anyway. May I suggest splitting this PR into 3 separate ones to address the 3 individual goals and keep the git history cleaner?

@MatthieuDartiailh
Copy link
Owner Author

Sure I can split the work between dropping 3.9 and 3.10 (and subsequent simplifications) and the rest. But what is the third part you would have seen ? @P403n1x87

@P403n1x87
Copy link
Contributor

what is the third part you would have seen ?

Based on the PR title I thought this PR had 3 parts:

  • Drop 3.9 and 3.10
  • simplify code base
  • fix async gen issue

@MatthieuDartiailh
Copy link
Owner Author

Yes but dumping 3.9 and 3.10 without taking advantage of that to remove the related version checks feels like unfinished work to me. I will split in 2.

@MatthieuDartiailh MatthieuDartiailh changed the title Drop support for Python 3.9 and 3.10, simplify code base and fix async generator issue Fix async generator issue and prefer opcode comparison to name comparison everywhere Dec 18, 2025
@MatthieuDartiailh MatthieuDartiailh merged commit d98ee89 into main Dec 21, 2025
10 checks passed
@MatthieuDartiailh MatthieuDartiailh deleted the fix-end-async-for branch December 21, 2025 14:31
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.

Exception for async function in Python 3.14

4 participants