Support Python 3 about apitools HOT 7 OPEN

Some remaining issues... Fixed in #228, #229, #230, #231

flake8 testing of https://github.com/google/apitools on Python 3.6.3

$ flake8 . --count --select=E901,E999,F821,F822,F823 --show-source --statistics

./ez_setup.py:94:41: E999 SyntaxError: invalid syntax
    except pkg_resources.VersionConflict, e:
                                        ^
./apitools/base/protorpclite/messages.py:482:20: F821 undefined name 'cmp'
            return cmp(self.number, other.number)
                   ^
./apitools/base/protorpclite/messages_test.py:132:48: F821 undefined name 'long'
            self.assertEquals(Color.RED, Color(long(20)))
                                               ^
./apitools/base/protorpclite/messages_test.py:1041:47: F821 undefined name 'long'
            messages.IntegerField(10, default=long(10))
                                              ^
./samples/storage_sample/downloads_test.py:174:31: E999 SyntaxError: invalid syntax
            print 'Progress %s' % download_object.progress
                              ^
2     E999 SyntaxError: invalid syntax
3     F821 undefined name 'cmp'
5

from apitools.

The tests currently run under multiple python versions including python 3 versions.

https://github.com/google/apitools/blob/master/tox.ini

from apitools.

That's great! Do we have any concerns about adding a Python3 language classifiers to setup.py to explicitly state Python3 support?

from apitools.

Actually looks like Codebase is not fully Python3-complient, and there are some PRs in flight, for example: #214.

from apitools.

There may be a few bugs related, but this code base is largely python3 compliant. #214 looks to be a PR made by a non-contributor and the changes in that pull are no longer relevant.

from apitools.

FYI: BEAM-5788 shows that GCS api calls in google-apitools don't work on Python 3. Based on the feedback I've received so far, google-apitools is not officially supported, and google-api-python-client or something in the google-cloud family of libraries should be used instead, so I don't have an expectation that this issue will be fixed.

from apitools.

Despite BEAM's readiness, can #228, #229, #230, #231 still be reviewed?

from apitools.