STINNER Victor added the comment: > 1) Serhiy's point about not needing to build the symlinks set when > followlinks is True is a good one, because it'll never get used. Just a "if > not followlinks: ..." around that try/except would do it. Though this is a > small optimization, as I expect 95% of people use os.walk() with > followlinks=False, which is the default.
No, it's not a "small optimization". I/O are expensive, especially disk I/O. Try os.walk() on a NFS share with the cache disabled ;-) > My first note was about efficiency of the implementation. When followlinks is > true, you can avoid testing entry.is_link() and creating the symlinks set. Oh, I misunderstood your comment. The changeset 1a972140ab62 avoids calling entry.is_symlink() when it's not needed. Thanks for the report. -- walk_added_symlink_to_dir.patch: Small modification to os.walk() to keep the performances of os.scandir() *and* still supported adding symlinks to dirs (no backward compatibility changes). Happy? :-) I started to work on an unit test, but I don't understand how WalkTests and FwalkTests are written. The setUp() method contais unit tests?! For example, setUp() has a unit test removing a directory from the dirs list to check os.walk() behaviour. I will try harder to understand how these tests are written and post a patch for tests later. ---------- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file38450/walk_added_symlink_to_dir.patch _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue23605> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
