asyncio.base_events.Server is not exposed as Asyncio.Server in early versions of 3.9 and 3.10 and all previous versions

[jack60612]

Documentation:

The documentation for python shows asyncio.base_events.Server as asyncio.Server in all python versions, Offending Page. However, it is not exposed as such until late versions of 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11.0.

Relevant Facts:

PR #31760 makes the change exposing it as asyncio.Server, but this only effects newer versions.

My Comments:

I can make a pr adding a note to the docs, let me know what you would like me to do.

Linked PRs

• gh-106882: asyncio.Server add version changed message for exposure from asyncio.base_events.Server #106901
• [3.12] gh-106882: Note that asyncio.Server is only publicly exposed on 3.11+ (GH-106901) #106902
• [3.11] gh-106882: Note that asyncio.Server is only publicly exposed on 3.11+ (GH-106901) #106903

[AlexWaygood]

Thanks for the report. However, Python 3.10 and lower now only accept security-related fixes. The error in the docs here only affects Python 3.10 and lower, and the bug doesn't relate to a security issue, so I'm afraid we won't be fixing this at this point.

[jack60612]

Thanks for the report. However, Python 3.10 and lower now only accept security-related fixes. The error in the docs here only affects Python 3.10 and lower, and the bug doesn't relate to a security issue, so I'm afraid we won't be fixing this at this point.

Ok, Thanks.

[jack60612]

Oh wait, the history in 3.11 still needs to be corrected though, or do you disagree? @AlexWaygood

[AlexWaygood]

Yes, I suppose you could add a .. versionchanged sentence noting that it's only available as asyncio.Server on 3.9.11+, 3.10.3+, and 3.11+. Feel free to make a PR :)

[jack60612]

Yes, I suppose you could add a .. versionchanged sentence noting that it's only available as asyncio.Server on 3.9.11+, 3.10.3+, and 3.11+. Feel free to make a PR :)

Sounds good, thanks again.

[altendky]

I would note that the inline history is still incorrect in the 3.11 docs by omitting the addition of this availability. Though sure, I don't expect that to reopen this issue.

[AlexWaygood]

I would note that the inline history is still incorrect in the 3.11 docs by omitting the addition of this availability. Though sure, I don't expect that to reopen this issue.

That's already been noted above, and I've already reopened the issue as a result, and @jack60612 has already submitted a PR to rectify that, which will be backported to the 3.12 and 3.11 docs

[AlexWaygood]

Thanks again @jack60612!