gh-135273: Unify ZoneInfo.from_file signatures

[hrimov]

• Issue: Unify ZoneInfo.from_file signature #135273

[ZeroIntensity]

Technically, this is a positional-only argument, so the name of it shouldn't actually matter. But I think we might as well be consistent, especially if this is causing problems in typeshed.

[picnixz]

Can you also update the docs: https://docs.python.org/3/library/zoneinfo.html#zoneinfo.ZoneInfo.from_file? fobj is not necessarily better than file_obj (at least there is no ambiguity with f being for file)

[hrimov]

I agree that there's no inherent advantage of file_obj over fobj and vice versa in terms of clarity - both are unambiguous. The change is primarily motivated by the need for signature unification, nothing more.

I've updated the docs, thanks!

[picnixz]

Actually, I'm thinking about something: wouldn't it be easier if we were to use fobj in C and revert the typeshed stuff? We can use fobj as file_obj in C so that we minimize the C changes as well.

[hrimov]

Sure, as I mentioned in the typeshed PR - the desynchronization came only because C implementation was different (just not specified alias).

Re would it be easier or not - we will just need to update the typeshed stubs for it, depending whether we gonna backport it or not.

So if you think it will be better - I can update this PR with these changes, If you don't mind.

[picnixz]

file_obj would be more explicit, but fobj would take less work. But actually, now that I think about, if the change has been made in 3.12, we won't be able to backport it, so let's continue with file_obj for the rest of Python.

[miss-islington-app]

Thanks @hrimov for the PR, and @picnixz for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.13.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

[miss-islington-app]

Thanks @hrimov for the PR, and @picnixz for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.14.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

[bedevere-app]

GH-135715 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.13 branch.

[bedevere-app]

GH-135716 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.14 branch.

[bedevere-bot]

⚠️⚠️⚠️ Buildbot failure ⚠️⚠️⚠️

Hi! The buildbot aarch64 Fedora Stable Clang 3.x (tier-2) has failed when building commit 7cc8949.

What do you need to do:

1. Don't panic.
2. Check the buildbot page in the devguide if you don't know what the buildbots are or how they work.
3. Go to the page of the buildbot that failed (https://buildbot.python.org/#/builders/234/builds/7857) and take a look at the build logs.
4. Check if the failure is related to this commit (7cc8949) or if it is a false positive.
5. If the failure is related to this commit, please, reflect that on the issue and make a new Pull Request with a fix.

You can take a look at the buildbot page here:

https://buildbot.python.org/#/builders/234/builds/7857

Failed tests:

• test_perf_profiler

Failed subtests:

• test_python_calls_appear_in_the_stack_if_perf_activated - test.test_perf_profiler.TestPerfProfilerWithDwarf.test_python_calls_appear_in_the_stack_if_perf_activated

Summary of the results of the build (if available):

==

Click to see traceback logs

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/buildbot/buildarea/3.x.cstratak-fedora-stable-aarch64.clang/build/Lib/test/test_perf_profiler.py", line 373, in test_python_calls_appear_in_the_stack_if_perf_activated
    self.assertEqual(stderr, "")
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^
AssertionError: 'Warning:\nProcessed 431 events and lost 3[34 chars]\n\n' != ''
- Warning:
- Processed 431 events and lost 3 chunks!
- 
- Check IO/CPU overload!
- 


Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/buildbot/buildarea/3.x.cstratak-fedora-stable-aarch64.clang/build/Lib/test/test_perf_profiler.py", line 373, in test_python_calls_appear_in_the_stack_if_perf_activated
    self.assertEqual(stderr, "")
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^
AssertionError: 'Warning:\nProcessed 457 events and lost 1[34 chars]\n\n' != ''
- Warning:
- Processed 457 events and lost 1 chunks!
- 
- Check IO/CPU overload!
-