Some ideas for dopping Python 2.7:

• pwb version issue
  • The next pywikibot release number can be 4.0:
    • 1.0 for compat
    • 2.0 for stable release branch of core which has been dropped 2017
    • 3.0 for the core master branch
    • 4.0 for the new branch supporting Python >= 3.X only
• Python release issues
  • Python 3.4 reached its end-of-life time in March (PEP 429) and should not be supported any longer (1)
  • Python 3.5 reaches its end-of-life time in September 2020 (2)
  • requests library is a base libreary of pwb but requests III needs Python 3.6 (3)
• Repository issues
  • hard break of core
  • we can either have a new repository for the new and set the curren core repository to be read-only for further use
  • use a new branch for the new (as we had it with core "2.0") and merge new pathes to it. But this can be problematic if we want to change old master with 3.0 and 4.0 with new master at any time.
• Code issues
  • open patches should be merged as much as possible instead of rebase it to the new repository/branch
  • new features are reserved for the new repository/branch
  • code redesing should be done in the new repository/branch
  • bugfixes can be done for a longer time if necessary or desirable for the old repository/branch

see also T221801

Works for me

In T102860#3826676, @Framawiki wrote:

This task looks resolved, I can't find the problematic get_token_part_one in the script, no ?

Thank you

Declined due to no consens found on CR until now and every change on any script will cause the patch to be rebased. Too many work for a little benefit.

In T225631#5257265, @Dvorapa wrote:

On testwikis this is easy to do, see e.g. https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Orphan_file or https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:No_license or https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working

In T225729#5256944, @Dvorapa wrote:

Yes, this is an old issue. I sovled it partially in https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/pywikibot/core/+/429875/ perhaps we could use some code out of there too.

Probably a windows problem?

In T225631#5253476, @Dvorapa wrote:

Why not create one?

In T224364#5220334, @Dalba wrote:

is not deterministic

But why? Which part of the test/script is causing this behaviour?