[issue13327] Update utime API to not require explicit None argument

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset 8907d646e0df by Jesus Cea in branch 'default': Commit 59dca1e2363d for issue #13327 introduced a compilation warning http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/8907d646e0df -- ___ Python tracker

[issue13327] Update utime API to not require explicit None argument

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset 5e18ff5476e8 by Brian Curtin in branch 'default': News updates for #13327. http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/5e18ff5476e8 -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue13327] Update utime API to not require explicit None argument

Brian Curtin added the comment: Changeset 045e8757f10d was also entered for this, which should conclude the changes. Everything seems to have survived the buildbots for now, so closing as fixed. Feel free to reopen if there are any other issues. -- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch r

[issue13327] Update utime API to not require explicit None argument

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset 59dca1e2363d by Brian Curtin in branch 'default': Fix #13327. utimensat now has the atime and mtime arguments set as optional, http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/59dca1e2363d -- ___ Python tracker

[issue13327] Update utime API to not require explicit None argument

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset 99e118951a80 by Brian Curtin in branch 'default': Fix #13327. Remove the need for an explicit None as the second argument to http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/99e118951a80 -- nosy: +python-dev ___ Python

[issue13327] Update utime API to not require explicit None argument

Jesús Cea Avión added the comment: +1 to the optional parameter. -- nosy: +jcea ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing l

[issue13327] Update utime API to not require explicit None argument

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > The `delta` keyword would actually be better than `places`, especially > on the slower buildbots. delta=10 would allow up to 10 seconds between > those utime calls. Is that being too permissive? I think it's ok. We don't have to test the system's utime implem

[issue13327] Update utime API to not require explicit None argument

Petri Lehtinen added the comment: +1 on making the second arg optional. -- nosy: +petri.lehtinen ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bu

[issue13327] Update utime API to not require explicit None argument

Brian Curtin added the comment: The `delta` keyword would actually be better than `places`, especially on the slower buildbots. delta=10 would allow up to 10 seconds between those utime calls. Is that being too permissive? -- ___ Python tracker

[issue13327] Update utime API to not require explicit None argument

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: I would specify an even smaller "places". We have very slow buildbots. You could first call utime() with a date far away in the past if you want. -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue13327] Update utime API to not require explicit None argument

Brian Curtin added the comment: Ah, yes. Would the following work better for the last line? self.assertAlmostEqual(st1.st_mtime, st2.st_mtime, places=2) -- ___ Python tracker _

[issue13327] Update utime API to not require explicit None argument

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: You have a possible failure here: +# Set to the current time in the old explicit way. +os.utime(support.TESTFN, None) +st1 = os.stat(support.TESTFN) +# Set to the current time in the new way +os.utime(support.TESTFN) +

[issue13327] Update utime API to not require explicit None argument

New submission from Brian Curtin : os.utime currently requires an explicit `None` as the second argument in order to update to the current time. Other APIs would just have the second argument as optional in this case, operating with one argument. Attached is a patch which changes the second ar