Bump Python 3.9 → 3.10

[maresb]

Describe your changes

Bump Python 3.9 → 3.10

Issue ticket if applicable

Closes #1688

Checklist (especially for first-time contributors)

• I have performed a self-review of my code
• If it is a core feature, I have added thorough tests
• I will try not to use force-push to make the review process easier for reviewers
• I have updated the documentation for significant changes

[mathbunnyru]

I think we have a test, that checks python version.
Probably need to fix it :)

[mathbunnyru]

And, because of our current build system, it's technically impossible to fix this test.

[maresb]

Ah, ok. I'm finally back from traveling, so hopefully I can manage to wrap my head around #1703. I'd really like to understand all the clever stuff you're doing there! 😄

[mathbunnyru]

Wow, the test seems to pass. It shouldn’t 😂

[maresb]

So is it testing with 3.10 on base and 3.9 on all the other images?

I checked the scipy image and it looks like it. So the passing test doesn't mean much anyways, right? But I could test it locally?

[mathbunnyru]

@maresb I fixed this test in master. Please, merge it and it should fail now :)

[maresb]

@mathbunnyru ok, good, now it's failing as expected.

[mathbunnyru]

@maresb this is just a joke 😂

[maresb]

Ooh, very tempting! 😂

Honestly this weekend is unfortunately looking bleak for me accomplishing any fun work. I'm on the road next week, and I have a lot to prepare.

I'll see if I can download it and have a look for when I'm offline...

[mathbunnyru]

No pressure here, @maresb :)
Many of us are doing this for fun, and you can take as much time as you need to :)

[maresb]

Ah, and I should be clear, I have not tested this myself, so there could be some package further down the chain which is incompatible with 3.10. (But since it's been over ½ year, I think most reputable packages should have adapted by now.)

[mathbunnyru]

That's a good point. That's why our current CI builds something strange, then tests it, then incorrectly tags it, and done.
At the same time, the amd64 workflow should catch problems like this, because it builds what expected and tests it well.

[maresb]

Oh, that's great to know! I'm glad that amd64 workflow runs correctly.

On the other hand, the arm64 migration on Conda-Forge is not 100%, so there's often disparity between amd64 and arm64. I wouldn't trust amd64 to signal an all-clear for arm64.

[bjornjorgensen]

INFO test_python:test_python.py:16 Checking that python version is lower than 3.10

Is this one of our tests?

[bjornjorgensen]

I open #1714 where I have changed the test next python version. I did't run on my github, soo I have open it her.

[mathbunnyru]

This will work now, but I will have to rebuild many times, waiting each time for the workflow to complete, to actually update all the images.
I will merge when tests pass.

[mathbunnyru]

The test we have for python version is not checking the exact match to the expected python version, so the tests should pass.