Many 'o' fixes

[ntninja]

Many fixes for:

• Running tests on Debian/Linux
• Coverage reporting wrt Python 2 & 3 only code
• Source code indented with tabs (like all of mine)
• Type comments (old-style typings for compatiblity with Python 2.7 and, in some cases, 3.5)
• Forward-references (string values in typings)
• pathlib.Path/os.fspath filesystem paths

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (9b15d0e) to head (3699165).
⚠️ Report is 7 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##            master       #71    +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%            
==========================================
  Files            4         4            
  Lines          254       424   +170     
  Branches        62       120    +58     
==========================================
+ Hits           254       424   +170     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/unasync/__init__.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[ntninja]

Can you make the coverage reports public please? It cannot view them and I don't see any coverage misses when running locally.

[sethmlarson]

Thanks for this!

A high level comment is it might be easier to review all of this if it were split into multiple smaller PRs. Would you be able to do that?

It looks like there was a problem shipping the coverage data? Our reports should be public as far as I'm aware? https://codecov.io/gh/python-trio/unasync/pull/71

[sethmlarson]

This might be causing a problem for Python 2 coverage, might need a [paths] source = src/unasync entry too.

[ntninja]

A high level comment is it might be easier to review all of this if it were split into multiple smaller PRs. Would you be able to do that?

I'd strongly prefer not doing that, as the commits build on each other and separating them into different PRs would be a big mess. That said, each commit is self-contained and you can review them one-by-one on Github.

It looks like there was a problem shipping the coverage data? Our reports should be public as far as I'm aware? https://codecov.io/gh/python-trio/unasync/pull/71

Hmm… That worked, then stopped working, then started working again. 😕

This might be causing a problem for Python 2 coverage, might need a [paths] source = src/unasync entry too.

I tried this in both coverage files and it did nothing. However, one can see the actual summary coverage data on CodeCov by clicking on the Files and then on the src/unasync directory which appears to be an exact mirror of the unasync directory in terms of coverage data, but is actually able to load the data.

[pquentin]

I still need to review two commits: 600807e and 4527a95. The rest looks good to me!

(Sorry, it took me time to see this as I was on holidays and GitHub notifications only showed me recent items.)