Apologies if this has been asked/answered recently...
# general
f
Apologies if this has been asked/answered recently… I’m wondering about the status of Python 3.10 support for pants itself. I recall reading some months ago that I was work-in-progress but was asked today by a coworker about the status of that. Thanks!
👋 1
b
For running pants? Check out the new pants binary on the docs site under "installing pants" (I think that's the name)
f
Hey Josh! Thanks, I’m already using that… so pants itself supports running under Python 3.10? How do I control that?
Let me look at the docs 😄
e
No
It runs under 3.9 but the 3.9 is ~included in the binary now.
f
Oh, got it
e
So do you actually still care about 3.10?
f
Great, thank you! So in GitHub Actions, do I even need to run the
setup-python
action with
version: 3.9
for pants to run (especially if I have local plugins)?
e
No.
f
Yes
I’ve vendored a copy of it, but yes
e
Ok, well the recent versions handle scie-pants.
f
Yeah, I vendored it approximately last week
e
Ok.
f
The only need for setting up a Python 3.9 is if I’m testing local pants plugins?
I see that as an option in the action
e
Local code is local code. If it's Python and you want to run Pants goals against it (fmt, lint, check, test, etc) you need Python. If you don't want to do those things and you just want Pants to run the plugin code, you don't need your own Python. You must now pretend Pants is native and the PBS CPython 3.9 it uses internally is an implementation detail.
So my no above was incorrect!
Sorry about that.
f
No problem 😄 I’m not actually testing our plugin directly, since we run it and we’ll find out if it breaks. Just trying to understand the limits
e
Are you network isolated? What drives vendoring the action?
f
The default cache locations didn’t work in our self-hosted runners for reasons that I didn’t root cause
e
Gotcha.
f
The path here is hardcoded instead of configured with `pants.ci.toml`: https://github.com/pantsbuild/actions/blob/main/init-pants/action.yaml#L140
e
I think it goes without saying we welcome parametrization contributions.
f
Or being configurable by an input to the action
😄 I’ll try to put something together soon