Add Python 3.12 compatibility for path fieldtype

[yunzheng]

Fixes #89

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Comparison is base (a9808ec) 80.08% compared to head (688803a) 80.12%.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #91 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 80.08% 80.12% +0.03% ========================================== Files 33 33 Lines 3113 3119 +6 ========================================== + Hits 2493 2499 +6 Misses 620 620 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/fox-it/flow.record/pull/91/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=fox-it) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/fox-it/flow.record/pull/91/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=fox-it) | `80.12% <100.00%> (+0.03%)` | :arrow_up: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=fox-it#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[pyrco]

I had this change in mind. It's not a real mock of posixpath/ntpath but for the testcase purposes it is sufficient.

[pyrco]

Ok, this didn't work as expected, I'll have to look a bit more into it

[yunzheng]

Ok, this didn't work as expected, I'll have to look a bit more into it

any luck with this?

[Schamper]

I've pushed a possible fix for the unit test.

[pyrco]

Yes, that is the mock I was looking for :wink: