Updated workflow to support python 3.10

[Nirzak]

Updated test workflow and added classifier to support python 3.10.

[Gallaecio]

We should also update checks.yml to use 3.10 instead of 3.9 where possible.

[Nirzak]

Should I also update publish.yml?
And another thing. I think readthedocs supports python 3.9 now. https://docs.readthedocs.io/en/stable/config-file/v2.html I have seen both scrapy and parsel repositories are using python 3.8 for this. Should we update this?

[Gallaecio]

Should I also update publish.yml?

Yes, please!

And another thing. I think readthedocs supports python 3.9 now. https://docs.readthedocs.io/en/stable/config-file/v2.html I have seen both scrapy and parsel repositories are using python 3.8 for this. Should we update this?

Yes, and I think they also support 3.10.

[Nirzak]

Should I also update publish.yml?

Yes, please!

And another thing. I think readthedocs supports python 3.9 now. https://docs.readthedocs.io/en/stable/config-file/v2.html I have seen both scrapy and parsel repositories are using python 3.8 for this. Should we update this?

Yes, and I think they also support 3.10.

Yeah updated it. Please check now if any other changes are needed?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #230 (0fc2c2f) into master (fdba8af) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##            master      #230   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files            5         5           
  Lines          290       290           
  Branches        50        50           
=========================================
  Hits           290       290           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update fdba8af...0fc2c2f. Read the comment docs.

[Gallaecio]

Thank you. I think that’s it.

The only failing check is due to a new version of pylint which adds new checks. We should probably handle that separately, in a similar fashion to how it was handled in Scrapy (probably also pinning the pylint version to avoid similar issues in the future), so I think it is fine to merge this pull request as is, as soon as another maintainer also approves the changes.

[Nirzak]

Thank you. I think that’s it.

The only failing check is due to a new version of pylint which adds new checks. We should probably handle that separately, in a similar fashion to how it was handled in Scrapy (probably also pinning the pylint version to avoid similar issues in the future), so I think it is fine to merge this pull request as is, as soon as another maintainer also approves the changes.

Ok sir.