FYI, the Ubuntu CI fails while testing tkinter, not sqlite3:

test_heading_callback (tkinter.test.test_ttk.test_widgets.TreeviewTest) ... Timeout (0:20:00)!
Thread 0x00007f5092516080 (most recent call first):
  File "/home/runner/work/cpython/cpython/Lib/tkinter/__init__.py", line 696 in wait_visibility
  File "/home/runner/work/cpython/cpython/Lib/tkinter/test/test_ttk/test_widgets.py", line 1539 in test_heading_callback

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.

And if you don't make the requested changes, you will be put in the comfy chair!

Thanks for reviewing @corona10! I'll have a look at it tonight.

I have made the requested changes; please review again.

Thanks for making the requested changes!

@corona10: please review the changes made to this pull request.

Thanks for the work, I left several reviews for better usage.

Thanks again for reviewing!

It is recommended extensions use other PyModule_*() and PyObject_*() functions rather than directly manipulate a module’s __dict__.

That's way better. I should've though of that, but I'm not that familiar with all the recommended practices of the C API yet. Thanks!

By the way, regarding the integer constants loop between line 412 and 419. Wouldn't it be cleaner to use PyModule_AddIntMacro here? I would tear out _int_constants, _IntConstantPair (and it's typedef), and replace the constant array with a helper function (for example static int add_integer_constants(PyObject *module) { ... }) that could be called from the module init function. Would it be ok to add this to the PR?

Regarding this snippet in the module init function:

   /* In Python 2.x, setting Connection.text_factory to
         OptimizedUnicode caused Unicode objects to be returned for
         non-ASCII data and bytestrings to be returned for ASCII data.
         Now OptimizedUnicode is an alias for str, so it has no
         effect. */
      Py_INCREF((PyObject*)&PyUnicode_Type);
      if (PyModule_AddObject(module, "OptimizedUnicode", (PyObject*)&PyUnicode_Type) < 0) {
          Py_DECREF((PyObject*)&PyUnicode_Type);
          goto error;
      }

This looks like something that should be deprecated.

Thanks for making the requested changes!

@corona10: please review the changes made to this pull request.

By the way, regarding the integer constants loop between line 412 and 419. Wouldn't it be cleaner to use PyModule_AddIntMacro here? I would tear out _int_constants, _IntConstantPair (and it's typedef), and replace the constant array with a helper function (for example static int add_integer_constants(PyObject *module) { ... }) that could be called from the module init function. Would it be ok to add this to the PR?

@corona10: This snuck in in the last push (commit 70a42ab)! If you want me to exclude this, let me know, and I'll revert it right away. Sorry 'bout that.

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.

I have made the requested changes; please review again.

Thanks for making the requested changes!

@corona10: please review the changes made to this pull request.

@erlend-aasland Thanks for the work, I also manually check the module attribute by my hand and it looks good.

@erlend-aasland Thanks for the work, I also manually check the module attribute by my hand and it looks good.

Great! Thanks for a thorough review, @corona10!

Is python3.7 involved?