Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 98.38%. Comparing base (0ee3f99) to head (c0a3271).

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #17898   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.38%   98.38%           
=======================================
  Files         171      171           
  Lines       22295    22295           
=======================================
  Hits        21936    21936           
  Misses        359      359           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Code size report:

   bare-arm:    +0 +0.000% 
minimal x86:    +0 +0.000% 
   unix x64:    +0 +0.000% standard
      stm32:   -32 -0.008% PYBV10
     mimxrt:   -24 -0.006% TEENSY40
        rp2:    +0 +0.000% RPI_PICO_W
       samd:    +0 +0.000% ADAFRUIT_ITSYBITSY_M4_EXPRESS
  qemu rv32:    +0 +0.000% VIRT_RV32

unix isn't covered here, it has a different localtime tuple layout iirc? Should it also be consolidated as a V2 breaking change?
Do you know how much size-add it would be to make this a namedtuple?

unix isn't covered here, it has a different localtime tuple layout iirc?

You're right, unix isn't touched by this PR. But it still returns the same layout (although it has an extra field for "isdst").

Do you know how much size-add it would be to make this a namedtuple?

Do you mean for all ports, or just unix?

I'm not really sure, but is making it a namedtuple important/useful?

extra field for "isdst\

Ah yes that's it. The inconsistency does add some difficulty when writing modules / tests that are intended to run on both Unix and hardware, though noting DST can be quite important when the platform supports it.

I'm not really sure, but is making it a namedtuple important/useful?

Yeah sorry it's a bit off topic for this PR, but localtime and os.stat are two things I run into semi-regularly that have named attributes in cpython but not in micropython; it makes them harder to access individual elements in a documented way in code and harder to manually introspect on repl.

Every time I want to I need to research either online or by finding in the mpy source what the fields are, then for code use define field mappings to then reference the right field in a reviewable way.

Regardless of the above comments, I'm in full support of the changes made already here, they look good and are a really logical cleanup.