Robert Collins added the comment:
ping @serhiy - there's a bug in the patch. Moving back to patch review.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
stage: commit review -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org
Robert Collins added the comment:
@serhiy could you update the patch with the review feedback? Thanks. Moving
back to patch review. Lars hasn't commented on this in a year, so I think we
should go ahead once the patch is fixed: e.g. you should update the comments
and commit it dir
Changes by Robert Collins :
--
stage: commit review -> patch review
status: pending -> open
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue22141>
___
___
Robert Collins added the comment:
reset.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
resolution: not a bug ->
stage: -> needs patch
status: closed -> languishing
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.or
Robert Collins added the comment:
@ezio I think you should commit what you have so far. LGTM.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue23
Robert Collins added the comment:
Yep: "The issue has no clear solution , e.g., no agreement on a technical
solution or if it is even a problem worth fixing."
Brett is saying he doesn't consider this a bug.
Steven says he doesn't have time to push it forward.
Oh, I
Robert Collins added the comment:
LGTM - lukasz, do you want to commit this, or would you like someone else to if
you're too busy? Looks like we should patch this in 3.4/3.5./3.6 at this point.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
versions: +Python 3.4, Pytho
Robert Collins added the comment:
So, I think this is worth applying. The discussion around :ipp etc is
irrelevant here: this patch changes large or negative ints to be a valueerror,
as non-ints are.
The only question is where. I think this is in the category of 'will only break
Robert Collins added the comment:
ok, 3.6 only.
--
versions: +Python 3.6 -Python 2.7, Python 3.4, Python 3.5
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue20
Changes by Robert Collins :
--
stage: -> test needed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue24758>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscrib
Robert Collins added the comment:
How were you setting/introducing your assertions on the mocks? e.g. could you
supply a small sample script showing what used to work? Thanks.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.
Robert Collins added the comment:
Thanks for the patch @planet36, however I think this is sufficiently large a
change that we should also have a test case for it.
I'm also retargeting this to the current open branches for feature work - 3.6.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
stage: commit r
Robert Collins added the comment:
Bah, wrong stage. patch review.
--
stage: test needed -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issu
Robert Collins added the comment:
Thanks for the patch. Applied to 3.4 through 3.6.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
resolution: -> fixed
stage: commit review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.or
Robert Collins added the comment:
Yes, Python vendors pip, but is not maintaining it - it should be filed in
https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
resolution: third party -> rejected
status: pending -> closed
___
Python t
Changes by Robert Collins :
--
versions: +Python 3.6
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue22932>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Robert Collins added the comment:
Applied to 3.4 and up. Thanks for the patch!
--
nosy: +rbcollins
resolution: -> fixed
stage: commit review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.or
Robert Collins added the comment:
Now at https://github.com/testing-cabal/mock/issues/189
--
nosy: +rbcollins
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue17
Changes by Robert Collins :
--
nosy: +rbcollins
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue22625>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Changes by Robert Collins :
--
stage: patch review -> commit review
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue7>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mai
Robert Collins added the comment:
Looks committed a way back to me.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
resolution: -> fixed
stage: commit review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.or
Robert Collins added the comment:
See also issue 6631
--
nosy: +rbcollins
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue22852>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Robert Collins added the comment:
test_relativelocalfile is still in place in the urllib tests, so its affecting
urlopen to this point.
So I think the bug is fixed at least to the extent of the original report. I'm
going to close this.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
stage: commit r
Robert Collins added the comment:
I've updated the ref in the patch to this bug per Victor's comments, and
applied.
I'm not sure of protocol here. Do we close this ticket, or keep it open to
analyze the actual cause?
--
nosy: +rbcollins
___
Changes by Robert Collins :
--
stage: commit review -> needs patch
title: test_socket failure on AIX -> test_socket not running all tests on AIX
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/i
Changes by Robert Collins :
--
versions: +Python 3.6
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue23725>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Robert Collins added the comment:
I'm not 100% sure that tempfile.tempdir should be deprecated. Its much less
convenient to control global behaviour with that. I agree that mktemp should be.
I've updated the patch though.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
Added file: http://bugs.
Robert Collins added the comment:
So I'm confused. Is this applicable or not? Its in commit review, but there's
discussion of politics here :(.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
status: open -> pending
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.pytho
Changes by Robert Collins :
--
versions: +Python 3.4, Python 3.6
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue23888>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsub
Robert Collins added the comment:
Thanks for the patch.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
resolution: -> fixed
stage: commit review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.or
Robert Collins added the comment:
I can't find any reference to a discussion to deprecate tempdir outside of this
issue. Nothing on python-dev/python-ideas/peps.
I can see that there's an argument that it should be deprecated, but AFAICT the
idea to do so originated here. I
Robert Collins added the comment:
mktemp is clearly insecure. I'd just move the tmpdir up above the Deprecation
section start
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/is
Robert Collins added the comment:
Applied to 3.4 and up. Thanks for the patch.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
resolution: -> fixed
stage: needs patch -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.or
Robert Collins added the comment:
24081 invalidates half the patch, but the other half still applies.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
versions: +Python 3.4, Python 3.6
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue20
Robert Collins added the comment:
2.7 side applied.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue20769>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Robert Collins added the comment:
Thanks for the patch. Applied to 3.4/3.5/3.6 as well.
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: commit review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.or
Robert Collins added the comment:
@Gerhard would you like that ported to cPython for you?
@Tom - I think that if the patch applies to 2.7.x we should apply it there
since its very unlikely to break non-buggy code.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
versions: +Python 3.6
Changes by Robert Collins :
--
nosy: +rbcollins
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue13224>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Robert Collins added the comment:
The patch is a little stale but it seems easy enough to fix up. I'll commit it
tomorrowish in the absence of other discussion.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/is
Robert Collins added the comment:
So, I think the majority opinion seems to be:
AIUI the patch doesn't quite do that, so I'm going to pop this back to patch
review.
That said, Serhiy, if you fix it up, just commit it please :)
--
nosy: +rbcollins
stage: commit review ->
Robert Collins added the comment:
Thanks, applied across the board; I had to tweak it a little on 2.7.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
resolution: -> fixed
stage: commit review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bug
Robert Collins added the comment:
Post merge review:
looks like
data_as_list = read_data.splitlines(True)
would be a little cleaner.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue23
Robert Collins added the comment:
Thanks for the patch; applied to 3.4 and up.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
resolution: -> fixed
stage: commit review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.o
Robert Collins added the comment:
It looks fine to me, for whatever thats worth. I think you should commit it.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue15
Changes by Robert Collins :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: commit review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.or
Robert Collins added the comment:
The patch had some conflicts in the reference docs, I think I resolved it
correctly: if someone wanted to cross check my work that would be great.
However I was feeling (perhaps wrongly :)) confident so I have committed it
as-is.
--
resolution
Robert Collins added the comment:
So, I think this needs a test; returning a generator would be nice but would be
an API break.
Also the doc update needs to say 3.6 now.
Thanks; moving back to patch review.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
stage: commit review -> patch rev
Robert Collins added the comment:
@ashkop so append=True could be clearer as 'atend=True' - both forms of call
are expected to add the filter, but one adds to the front, one to the end.
Looking at warn_explicit, its takes the first matching filter, and then acts on
its actio
Robert Collins added the comment:
So it is downplayed but it is still documented as being application usable.
I'll give this another week for Ned to reply, then commit it in the absence of
a reply: I think its ok as is. I'd be ok with a tweaked version along the lines
Ned proposed
Robert Collins added the comment:
Sorry, I didn't realise that Zbigniew was an alternative spelling of your first
name.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/is
Robert Collins added the comment:
Thanks for the patch. I've committed the current status as an unambiguous
improvement; we can add tempdir as deprecated later if there is consensus on
that, the current patch did improve its docs per R. David Murray's request
anyhow.
--
Robert Collins added the comment:
Ok, so will someone commit 3), or would you like me to do so? After that it
sounds like we can move this back to patch review, since there will be nothing
left ready for commit.
--
___
Python tracker
<h
Changes by Robert Collins :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: commit review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.or
Robert Collins added the comment:
I've applied this since it seems Lukasz was busy. Thanks for the patch Lukasz!
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/is
Robert Collins added the comment:
Huh? I definitely did. I can see there's a extra head now, but I did the merge
up per protocol locally.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/is
Robert Collins added the comment:
anyhow fixed
--
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue21159>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mai
New submission from Robert Collins:
I was trying to demonstrate how testing some code is hard, and I stumbled upon
this.
The following code should be debuggable when run with a bad stdout - e.g.
python foo.py > /dev/full
---
import sys
import traceback
import pdb;pdb.Pdb(stdout=sys.std
Robert Collins added the comment:
Oh, and for added joy sys.last_value is not set here, so I've yet to manage to
poke at what is being executed - clearly pdb is still managing to single-step,
ish.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.py
Robert Collins added the comment:
See also issue24864 which is not *quite* a dupe, I also found that it exits 0,
unreasonably so.
The reporting thing is interesting, but the main thing I care about is that we
can catch it and do something reasonable with it... and that if not caught it
Robert Collins added the comment:
FWIW Python 2.7.8 behaves the same way (different message, same behaviour).
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue24
Robert Collins added the comment:
Oh, one nuance - the reason my except isn't triggering is that the write is
happening in interpreter shutdown - in flush_std_files.
Adding a a flush there allows that to work, but its fugly:
---
import sys
try:
print("What... is
Robert Collins added the comment:
@zzeeek
For Python 3 pipeline tools you need something like this:
try:
finally:
try:
sys.stdout.flush()
finally:
try:
sys.stdout.close()
finally:
try:
sys.stderr.flush()
finally
Robert Collins added the comment:
Updating the title to reflect my deeper understanding: the only issue here is
that we don't alter the exit code.
--
title: errors writing to stdout are uncatchable and exit with status 0 ->
errors writing to stdout during interpreter exit e
Robert Collins added the comment:
This patch is a minimal stab at the issue.
We should do this change because as it stands genuine user affecting errors can
be masked both in pipelines and non-pipeline cases.
A more comprehensive patch would also change e.g. Py_Exit, and the various
other
Robert Collins added the comment:
Oh, just saw your comment Martin; yes, this does look like a dupe.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue11
Robert Collins added the comment:
Oh, just saw your comment Martin; yes, this does look like a dupe.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue24
Robert Collins added the comment:
Bah, wrong issue. Sorry.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue11380>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsub
Robert Collins added the comment:
I think you need to make the following changes:
- Py_Exit with a non-zero status code should probably preserve the code rather
than replacing it with 1.
- Ditto in Py_Main.
- Add a defs entry for Py_FinalizeEx - should be a copy of the Py_Finalize
entry
Changes by Robert Collins :
--
resolution: -> duplicate
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue24864>
___
___
Python-bugs-
Robert Collins added the comment:
Ok, so needs more work. Moving back to patch review.
--
stage: commit review -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issu
Robert Collins added the comment:
Thanks for the patch. Applied to 3.4 and up.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
resolution: -> fixed
stage: commit review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.or
Robert Collins added the comment:
Patch looks good to me too. I think this needs to be put forward as a PR to
bitbucket right? It looks Release Critical to me.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue24
Robert Collins added the comment:
Looks good to me. I think you should commit (or perhaps you are pending PR
approval on the rc branch or something?)
--
nosy: +rbcollins
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue24
Robert Collins added the comment:
What sort of errors?
--
nosy: +rbcollins
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue24891>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Robert Collins added the comment:
Thank you for the patch; sorry it took me so long to get to it - been working
on a backlog of patch review.
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: -> resolved
status: open -> closed
versions: +Python 3.6
_
Robert Collins added the comment:
I can't see how the patch could have caused the
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
"D:\cygwin\home\db3l\buildarea\3.x.bolen-windows7\build\lib\test\test_symbol.py",
line 44, in test_real_grammar_and_symbol_file
os.st
Robert Collins added the comment:
So it looks like one failure is:
FAIL: test_getline (test.test_linecache.GoodUnicode)
--
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
"D:\cygwin\home\db3l\buildarea\3.x.bolen-windows7\buil
Robert Collins added the comment:
So I'm still ambivalent at best about this - this interface hasn't been
designed for subclassing - I'm sure there is a bunch more stuff that would be
needed. What /is/ needed feature wise here is a sideways extension mechanism
for doin
Changes by Robert Collins :
--
stage: patch review -> commit review
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue20362>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mai
Robert Collins added the comment:
Thanks for the patch, applied to 3.5 and 3.6.
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: commit review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.or
Robert Collins added the comment:
Debian is green again and I think windows will do so to.
--
stage: needs patch -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/i
Changes by Robert Collins :
--
stage: needs patch -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue22680>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mai
Robert Collins added the comment:
So - I'm with Victor and Raymond here. I think modifying difflib to provide
external control over the poor-O components would permit many more benefits
than just controlling time: you could wrap them in a timer module to get what
this patch does, you
Robert Collins added the comment:
Thanks for this. I think that a better approach would be the other linked bug -
we can kill many birds with one stone.
--
resolution: -> duplicate
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.p
Robert Collins added the comment:
So I've two more cases for this that I think we need to ensure works.
Firstly FunctionTestCase should be blacklistable, and its not abstract.
Secondly we're going to want nose, unittest2 etc to be able to also honour
this. I suspect that this is ea
Changes by Robert Collins :
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file36315/01438f18ee18.diff
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14534>
___
___
Python-bug
Robert Collins added the comment:
Removed the bogus huge diff.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14534>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailin
Robert Collins added the comment:
I'm going to review on rietvald - I see a lot of changes needed - sorry - and
some are a bit bikesheddy. But, if we do them I'll commit it asap and do any
final fixup needed.
--
___
Python trac
Changes by Robert Collins :
--
title: Add means to mark unittest.TestCases as "do not run". -> Add means to
mark unittest.TestCases as "do not load".
___
Python tracker
<http://
Robert Collins added the comment:
@Randy - ok thanks. So, please do improve the prose in the error message,
should be a very straight forward patch.
--
stage: test needed -> needs patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issu
Robert Collins added the comment:
Thank you very much for writing your patch in backwards compatible style - it
will make backporting to unittest2 much easier.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue24
Robert Collins added the comment:
I'm torn on whether this needs a test or not. It would be hard to regress, but
testing this properly really wants hypothesis with a
valid-python-identifier-strategy.
I think on balance we do need one.
So - we need a test in test_discover that mock
Robert Collins added the comment:
Ok so, design thoughts here.
assertLogs really does two things. Firstly it takes a copy of the logs so it
can do its assertion.
Secondly it disables all other logging, cleaning up noisy tests.
Your specific need only conflicts with the second case.
The way
Robert Collins added the comment:
reviewed in rietvald, but here too just in case.
The hunk that saves/restores _top_level_dir feels wrong to me - and not part of
this bug, please remove it.
The rest of the patch is fine today.
But it also needs to add two specifically namespace tests
Robert Collins added the comment:
(for the trivial case of CLI discover without a parameter - so translate that
to the lower level API and then test that)
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue23
Robert Collins added the comment:
There's a few interacting things here. If I can suggest some design thoughts.
buffering within a test is I think really something we should offer a test
servicing API for. There are many thirdparty ones (e.g. I have one in fixtures)
- but it should
Robert Collins added the comment:
It did that because you did not specify a top level directory. Without that,
the cwd is not on the path and that breaks many environments.
We should probably document it better. The workaround for your needs is to
either just run 'unittest discover
Robert Collins added the comment:
I've put a fairly comprehensive comment into issue22197.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue24355>
___
___
Robert Collins added the comment:
Possibly silly q: how does one /make/ a Python release tarball? 'make dist'
which is the autoconf standard complains that it has no such target...
--
nosy: +rbcollins
___
Python tracker
<http://bu
Robert Collins added the comment:
Applied to 3.6 only (since I don't want to disrupt the 3.5 release train, and
think that making packagers adjust on a point release would be mean).
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: ope
301 - 400 of 542 matches
Mail list logo