[issue29812] test for token.py, and consistency tests for tokenize.py

2017-07-11 Thread Ammar Askar
Ammar Askar added the comment: No problem, closing this in favor of issue 30455. -- resolution: -> out of date stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker

[issue29812] test for token.py, and consistency tests for tokenize.py

2017-07-03 Thread R. David Murray
R. David Murray added the comment: I have no opinion on that issue. I opened this issue to fix a hole in our validation, but if that hole no longer exists after that (subsequently opened :) issue is resolved, then this isn't needed (sorry, Ammar, and thank you for your work!) -- ___

[issue29812] test for token.py, and consistency tests for tokenize.py

2017-07-02 Thread Berker Peksag
Berker Peksag added the comment: Yes, they are. I like the idea of generating C files from Lib/token.py. Let's see what David thinks about issue 30455. -- nosy: +berker.peksag ___ Python tracker __

[issue29812] test for token.py, and consistency tests for tokenize.py

2017-07-02 Thread Serhiy Storchaka
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: See also issue30455. Don't these issues conflict one other? -- nosy: +serhiy.storchaka ___ Python tracker ___

[issue29812] test for token.py, and consistency tests for tokenize.py

2017-07-02 Thread Berker Peksag
Changes by Berker Peksag : -- stage: needs patch -> patch review ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue29812] test for token.py, and consistency tests for tokenize.py

2017-03-15 Thread R. David Murray
R. David Murray added the comment: The cross check test itself doesn't depend on a regeneration, but it does depend on the information in token.h. Meanwhile the validity of *that* is checked by regeneration in your test_token tests. This is exactly what I had in mind :). So, I haven't done

[issue29812] test for token.py, and consistency tests for tokenize.py

2017-03-15 Thread Ammar Askar
Ammar Askar added the comment: This is my first real substantial testing change so I'd appreciate all feedback. The way I did the cross-check doesn't actually rely on any of the information from the test_keyword style regeneration test. I think this approach is a lot simpler, and will prevent

[issue29812] test for token.py, and consistency tests for tokenize.py

2017-03-15 Thread Ammar Askar
Changes by Ammar Askar : -- pull_requests: +558 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.py

[issue29812] test for token.py, and consistency tests for tokenize.py

2017-03-15 Thread Jim Fasarakis-Hilliard
Changes by Jim Fasarakis-Hilliard : -- nosy: +Jim Fasarakis-Hilliard ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscr

[issue29812] test for token.py, and consistency tests for tokenize.py

2017-03-14 Thread R. David Murray
New submission from R. David Murray: http://bugs.python.org/issue24622 made reminded me that a while back we added tests for the keyword module that includes a test that if you run it, you get the result that is checked in. The same thing could be done for the token.py module. And then we co