Wolfgang Scherer added the comment:
Thanks, works for me.
I only noted the discrepancy and did not give it much thought.
I will just implement a merge method on top of read_dict.
That gives me all options that could be desired :).
However, after implementing the entire compatibility layer, I found one more
issue:
Using self.remove_section() changes the section order during an update.
I would prefer that the section be cleared instead of removed in order to
preserve the section order. Since OrderedDict does indeed preserve the key
order during update, I think that this does not violate the Mapping Protocol.
If this is not desired, just go ahead and close the issue.
See also attached example bug_configparser_update_order.py:
OrderedDict does not change the order of keys upon .update():
>>> od = OrderedDict((('section1', {}), ('section2', {})))
>>> list(od.keys())
['section1', 'section2']
>>> od.update((('section1', {}), ('section3', {})))
>>> list(od.keys())
['section1', 'section2', 'section3']
But ConfigParser changes the order of sections upon .update():
>>> cfg = configparser.ConfigParser()
>>> cfg.update((('section1', {}), ('section2', {})))
>>> cfg.sections()
['section1', 'section2']
>>> cfg.update((('section1', {}), ('section3', {})))
>>> cfg.sections()
['section2', 'section1', 'section3']
--
resolution: fixed -> rejected
status: closed -> open
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file28514/bug_configparser_update_order.py
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue16820>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
