Michael Felt <aixto...@felt.demon.nl> added the comment:
On 18/03/2020 13:55, STINNER Victor wrote: > STINNER Victor <vstin...@python.org> added the comment: > >> I may be mistaken, but I do not think the change introduced a regression. I meant - I had never considered IPv6 in the Address column, just as I suspect, whoever wrote the original. Your feedback made me realize that something like "fe80::78:9a:de:f0" would have been mistaken as a valid macaddr. > I'm talking about this: > https://bugs.python.org/issue39991#msg364435 > > I don't want to blame anyone. My intent here is to get more eyes on the > changes that I merged in bpo-39991 to make sure that I didn't break any > existing cases, and that I covered all cases. I will look closely at PR19045 - not because I expect to find anything wrong, but because I thought this is what you requested. Regards, Michael > >> While it is true that this case would not have appeared if there was > still a count of the field-separators an IPv6 address with 5 ':' and 17 > characters would have failed as well. > > Right, I pushed a second fix to also handle this case: commit > ebf6bb9f5ef032d1646b418ebbb645ea0b217da6. > > >> IMHO - while issue39991 is resolved - I am not -yet- convinced that the >> "root cause" has been identified and properly coded > If you still see cases which are not handled properly with commit > ebf6bb9f5ef032d1646b418ebbb645ea0b217da6, feel free to reopen bpo-39991. > > ---------- > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <https://bugs.python.org/issue28009> > _______________________________________ > ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue28009> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
