bpo-1635741: Port sha256 module to multiphase init (PEP 489)

[koubaa]

Link to issue

https://bugs.python.org/issue1635741

[the-knights-who-say-ni]

Hello, and thanks for your contribution!

I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept this contribution by verifying everyone involved has signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA).

Recognized GitHub username

We couldn't find a bugs.python.org (b.p.o) account corresponding to the following GitHub usernames:

@koubaa

This might be simply due to a missing "GitHub Name" entry in one's b.p.o account settings. This is necessary for legal reasons before we can look at this contribution. Please follow the steps outlined in the CPython devguide to rectify this issue.

You can check yourself to see if the CLA has been received.

Thanks again for the contribution, we look forward to reviewing it!

[koubaa]

edtited the commit msg and repushed so that it would pick up the CLA which I signed yesterday. Not sure what the Misc/NEWS.d/next is about

[shihai1991]

edtited the commit msg and repushed so that it would pick up the CLA which I signed yesterday. Not sure what the Misc/NEWS.d/next is about

If you add a feature which could effect the user, you should describe what you have changed in Misc/NEWS.d/next.
you can use a web service or cli to generate the description info:

• https://blurb-it.herokuapp.com/
• https://pypi.org/project/blurb/

A reference PR of Dong-hee Na:
c4862e3

[vstinner]

cc @corona10

[bedevere-bot]

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

[corona10]

It's ok to convert static types to heap types in a separated PR.

If @vstinner is okay to make a separate PR for heap types.
I am also okay to merge this PR.

Please apply the review :)

[koubaa]

@corona10 any change still requested?

@shihai1991 @vstinner I started looking at doing heap types. First a disclaimer I'm new in this code so maybe I'm missing some context. I am seeing auto-generated files from clinic that don't take a module pointer as an input, so the module->state approach used by _gdbmmodule would only work if I could modify all of those auto-generated files (and presumably the system which generates them).

[vstinner]

LGTM.

@corona10, @shihai1991: Would you mind to review the change?

@corona10: Feel free to merge if the change looks good to you ;-)

[corona10]

LGTM Thanks for the work!

[shihai1991]

oh, sorry, I am late, LGTM.