[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Change by Dirkjan Ochtman : -- nosy: -djc ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Change by Mark Dickinson : -- nosy: -mark.dickinson ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Paul "TBBle" Hampson added the comment: I just bounced off this issue and proposed a work-around for it in Black (https://github.com/psf/black/pull/1897). Since it wasn't mentioned here earlier, the `\` marker _is_ documented in the GNU Diffutils documentation, under "Incomplete Lines"

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Change by Jakub Wilk : -- nosy: +jwilk ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Change by Srinivas Reddy Thatiparthy(శ్రీనివాస్ రెడ్డి తాటిపర్తి) : -- nosy: +thatiparthy ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Change by Mark Lawrence : -- nosy: -BreamoreBoy ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Change by Xiao Di Guan : -- nosy: +puxlit ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Changes by Evgeny Kapun : -- nosy: +abacabadabacaba ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Mark Lawrence added the comment: Can we have a review on the updated patch please. -- nosy: +BreamoreBoy versions: +Python 3.5 -Python 3.3 ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue2142

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment: I’m not sure whether the compatibility policy would prevent that. Aren’t there some cases with iterators (not strings) that work fine today without the change? If so, it should be possible to get the same behavior. --

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Ray.Allen ysj@gmail.com added the comment: Yes there may be. Here is the updated patch: Add a new keyword argument to context_diff() and unified_diff() named warn_no_newline_at_end. If true, emit \ No newline etc. It defaults to True, set it to false to get the old behavior. I'm not sure

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment: Patch does not look bad. I re-read the discussion on python-dev, where it was suggested to add a keyword argument to get the old behavior. Have you considered it? -- versions: +Python 3.3 -Python 3.2

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Ray.Allen ysj@gmail.com added the comment: I re-read the discussion on python-dev, where it was suggested to add a keyword argument to get the old behavior. Have you considered it? IIUC, at the time of that discusstion, 3.2 is pre-beta so the suitable option is to add \No newline etc

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Ray.Allen ysj@gmail.com added the comment: Updated patch which can apply to current py3k cleanly and with changes follow eric's review comments. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file21067/issue_2142.diff ___ Python tracker

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment: To sum up the current consensus as I understand it, the missing end of line is clearly a bug, but the addition of “\No newline at end of file” is controversial. In the current patch, both are changed, so backporting only the first fix to 3.1

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Changes by Trent Mick tre...@gmail.com: -- assignee: - trentm ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue2142 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Trent Mick tre...@gmail.com added the comment: c.f. some discussion on python-dev here: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-October/104501.html -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue2142

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk added the comment: The two latest patch files were missing TestDifflib from run_unittest. Having shown that the tests failed if test_difflib only was patched, then patch difflib against the 3.1 maintainance and py3k branches, the former passed ok and the

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Ray.Allen ysj@gmail.com added the comment: Firstly, since this is marked as feature request, I updated the patch against py3k, to fix the problems found by BreamoreBoy. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file18081/issue_2142_py3k_updated.diff

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Ray.Allen ysj@gmail.com added the comment: I feel adding a keyword argument to deal with such a case is not quiet worthy. I'd prefer not fix it for 2.x, and make its behavior consist with svn diff and other similar tools, as trentm said, tools like patch will know how to use. --

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Ray.Allen ysj@gmail.com added the comment: This is really a bug, but why it's not fixed during such a long time? Since trentm's python_difflib_no_eol.patch patch failed against the current trunk, I modified it to work again, also a patch against py3k. -- nosy: +ysj.ray Added file:

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Changes by Ray.Allen ysj@gmail.com: Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file17333/issue_2142_py3k.diff ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue2142 ___

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com added the comment: I think it's arguable whether this is a bug or not. There's no official specification for the unified diff format that I can find anywhere; the GNU description at

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com added the comment: Marking as a feature request: I think this is somewhere on the line between bugfix and new feature, but either way 2.7 is too close to release to start messing with something that isn't really all that broken. For 2.7 (and 2.6, 3.1),

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com added the comment: You mean that this patch sits in here for 2 years already? This suxx. And nobody added the tag 'easy', because people haven't explicitly requested tracker privileges? That suxx. And it won't be in 2.7 because of that.. I am

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com added the comment: Trent, the \ New line... seems to be feature specific to unified format only. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff#Unified_format -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com added the comment: Hmm. Not in my version of diff: it seems to use '\ No newline at end of file' for both unified and 'normal' diffs. $ diff --version diff (GNU diffutils) 2.8.1 Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc. ... $ diff 1.txt 2.txt 2c2

[issue2142] difflib.unified_diff(...) produces invalid patches

Changes by Dan Buch daniel.b...@gmail.com: -- nosy: +meatballhat ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue2142 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list