New submission from Robert Greener:
iTerm uses ^? for backspace which is curses.ascii.DEL, patch, makes
curses.ascii.DEL use same behaviour as curses.ascii.BS
--
files: cursesbackspace.patch
keywords: patch
messages: 237345
nosy: ragreener
priority: normal
severity: normal
status: open
Robert Collins added the comment:
Yes, for debugging etc this can be very useful. I suggest further extending the
new traceback interface to allow a filtering/transform hook of some sort, to
allow folk more granular control than just repr overloading.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
Changes by Robert Kuska rku...@gmail.com:
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file38673/report
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23769
New submission from Robert Kuska:
Leaks happen only when both testDoctestFile and testDoctestSuite are run.
Run with Python 3.4.2 and 3.4.1 with same result.
I have extracted those two tests into `leak.py` (attached).
$ valgrind --suppressions=/../cpython/Misc/valgrind-python.supp python3
Robert Kuska added the comment:
Summary for
valgrind python3 test_zipimport.py
==18608==
==18608== HEAP SUMMARY:
==18608== in use at exit: 1,596,390 bytes in 11,536 blocks
==18608== total heap usage: 343,849 allocs, 332,313 frees, 59,355,776 bytes
allocated
==18608==
==18608== LEAK
Robert Kuska added the comment:
I tried leak2.py with valgrind, I've uncommented the lines you mentioned.
$ valgrind python3 leak2.py
Robert Collins added the comment:
Implementation wise: this is not part of the generic rendering-of-tracebacks;
I'd like to make the traceback new stuff be tastefully extensible - I'd be
inclined to do this with a per-frame-callback on render (so we don't pay
overhead on unrendered tb's
Robert Collins added the comment:
Why limit this to just stdlib shadowing?
A local module can shadow a top level module-or-package across the board. If we
don't limit it to stdlib names, it becomes a lot easier to implement.
--
___
Python tracker
Robert Collins added the comment:
Ok, all changes applied, lets see how this looks to folk.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file38324/issue17911-5.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17911
Robert Collins added the comment:
Ok, cgitb - its passing a string instead of an exception type into
format_exception - something that was never supported - it only works by
accident AFAICT, because the old format code was ignoring the etype - it was
deriving the type from the value. Thats
New submission from Robert Collins:
make patchcheck depends on the interpreter and modules being built to work
correctly but the make target doesn't have this expressed. This simple patch
will fix it and adds well under a second of latency for me.
cpython.hg$ make patchcheck
./python ./Tools
Robert Collins added the comment:
Thats really strange, I did a ./python -m test run before committing - the
brown bag was due to me running with the patch for 22936 also applied. Looking
into the failures reported now.
--
___
Python tracker rep
Robert Collins added the comment:
Fixes for buildbots.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file38335/issue-19711-8.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17911
Changes by Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net:
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file38332/issue-22936-3.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22936
Changes by Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net:
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file38333/issue-22936-3.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22936
Robert Collins added the comment:
Also apologies - ned told me on IRC that python -m test -uall is needed, not
just -m test. Doh.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17911
Robert Collins added the comment:
code module is using a _function from within the traceback module to filter out
a frame - we can do that with the new interface easily (it filters the first
tem).
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http
Robert Collins added the comment:
The decimal failure is due to _format_final_exc_line now filtering out 'None'
as well, because the string captured values of objects leads to None - 'None'
before we do rendering.
I think in this case its reasonable to change the behaviour (since None itself
Changes by Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net:
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file38336/issue-22936-4.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22936
Robert Collins added the comment:
And now updated to HEAD as 17911 has been committed.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file38332/issue-22936-3.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22936
Changes by Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net:
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file38325/issue17911-6.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17911
Changes by Robert Kuska rku...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +bkabrda
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23857
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing
Robert Kuska added the comment:
1) patch attached, dunno how I missed it, thank you.
3) I work for Red Hat
additional interest for example here http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2015/q1/785
2) It exists but it is not system wide, I would like to provide users option to
opt-in or opt-out without
Robert Kuska added the comment:
If you mean hack site.py to be sitecustomize I don't find it as a sufficient
solution because users may use their own sitecustomize and this way we would
replace theirs.
Sslcustomize solution could be another option how to handle this but the config
idea
Robert Kuska added the comment:
( ^ I was replying to Victor)
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23857
___
___
Python-bugs-list
New submission from Robert Kuska:
Proposed patch adds possibility to opt-out certificate verification.
Disclaimer: it is just proof of concept as the config value is hard-coded.
How it works?
This patch depends on existence of config file which holds information about
the protocol settings
Robert Collins added the comment:
Ok, so here's whats happening:
the default behaviour is to do discovery of '.', which bypasses the namespace
support code.
Running with tests as the first parameter works because it doesn't require the
directory being directly scanned to be a package
Robert Collins added the comment:
Nice, looks pretty elegant to me. I have nothing to add to the prior reviewers
comments.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22619
Robert Collins added the comment:
Thanks, I shall look at this Monday.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24054
Robert Collins added the comment:
Ah the user model?
I think the following:
If I run 'python -m unittest' in a directory, then I expect to run all of the
tests contained within that directory tree, and no others.
Does that definition help
Robert Collins added the comment:
I'm going to disagree with michael and antoine here.
The *internals* should be clean and pluggable for sure, but this is actually a
pretty common thing to try, so there's no reason to force it to only be done by
external plugins.
Right now the way to plug
Robert Collins added the comment:
Hi. I'd be happy enough to use pkgutil helpers if they (like walkdirs) allowed
trimming the output: part of the definition of discovery is that one can
control it, to stop it importing or processing part of the tree that one
doesn't want processed.
Alex: can
Robert Kuska added the comment:
Le 06/04/2015 13:29, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
So while this isn't a feature upstream itself needs, it's one
potentially needed by multiple *downstreams*, so in my view it makes
sense for us to work with upstream to come up with the one obvious way
Robert Collins added the comment:
I'd like to see a definite profile of a bloated stdlib test process before we
assume we know the issue - the usual leak I see in test code is used test
objects, and I'm not sure we've ported the usual fix for that into unittest yet
(we should).
As far
Robert Collins added the comment:
+1 on moving to the summary classes rather than actual tracebacks in unittest.
(Or perhaps even just serialised tracebacks like we do in testtools).
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http
Robert Collins added the comment:
I think ignoring weakref is wrong: it means the two implementations are
different.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9858
New submission from Robert Haschke:
Node.insertBefore() has a serious performance issue:
Using self.childNodes.index(refChild) it searches for the correct index in
childNodes where the newChild should be inserted.
However, index() is linear in time w.r.t. the size of childNodes.
Hence
Robert Collins added the comment:
Are the module names valid in import statements?
it would help if you could perhaps attach a little tar/zip file with an example
failure.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org
Robert Collins added the comment:
It would be nice for symmetry. I mean, setUpClass isn't needed either, and we
have it ;).
however, we actually have two contexts this would be called from - setUpClass
and setUpModule; both share their internals. So we probably need a decoupled
cleanups
Robert Collins added the comment:
FWIW I'm interested and willing to poke at this if more testers/reviewers are
needed.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue4753
Changes by Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net:
--
nosy: +rbcollins
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22625
___
___
Python-bugs
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 too: both
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 action.
So
Robert Collins added the comment:
Sorry, I didn't realise that Zbigniew was an alternative spelling of your first
name.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23725
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.
--
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 review
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 rep
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 rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org
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 rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24847
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 doing filtering
Changes by Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net:
--
stage: patch review - commit review
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue20362
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.stat(TEST_PY_FILE)))
AssertionError
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\build\lib
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 rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue20362
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 rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24054
Changes by Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net:
--
stage: needs patch - patch review
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22680
Robert Collins added the comment:
say, something to run a test until failure, or to
watch for reference leaks, or to run tests in multiple processes :-))
I think a few complimentary things.
unittest extensability currently requires a new CLI entry point for each thing.
I'd like to fix
Robert Collins added the comment:
Thanks for the patch!
--
resolution: - fixed
stage: needs patch - resolved
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22812
Robert Collins added the comment:
Ok, so this is still in the noise space - it might be useful, it might not. Do
we have reports of machines failing to run the test suite (that are also
usefully big enough to compile Python and use
Robert Collins added the comment:
Parameters please, TestCase has nothing to do with this - it really shouldn't
even have the method.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24193
Changes by Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net:
--
versions: +Python 3.5, Python 3.6
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24168
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 rep...@bugs.python.org
http
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: open - closed
Changes by Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net:
--
stage: needs patch - commit review
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2786
Robert Collins added the comment:
Personally I'm very skeptical of all the multi-test setup facilties because of
the very poor interactions with parallel testing that this basic approach has.
But - we haven't yet brought in something sensible to let us deprecate
setUpModule and setUpClass, so
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 could
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 easy and may
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 rep...@bugs.python.org
http
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
Changes by Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net:
--
title: Add means to mark unittest.TestCases as do not run. - Add means to
mark unittest.TestCases as do not load.
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue14534
Changes by Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net:
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file36315/01438f18ee18.diff
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue14534
Robert Collins added the comment:
Removed the bogus huge diff.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue14534
___
___
Python-bugs-list
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 mocks
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 tracker rep
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:
(for the trivial case of CLI discover without a parameter - so translate that
to the lower level API and then test that)
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23882
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:
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', or run
Robert Collins added the comment:
I've put a fairly comprehensive comment into issue22197.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24355
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 rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org
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 rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24263
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
___
Python tracker
Robert Collins added the comment:
What sort of errors?
--
nosy: +rbcollins
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24891
___
___
Python-bugs
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 rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24774
Robert Collins added the comment:
I don't know if or when it was moved, but right now:
./python -m pydoc unittest.case.TestCase.assertLogs
... the docs for it.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24193
Robert Collins added the comment:
Hi, catching up (see my mail to -dev about not getting tracker mail).
Deprecations++. Being nice for folk whom consume unittest2 which I backport to
everything is important to me :).
--
___
Python tracker rep
Robert Collins added the comment:
Applied to 2.7/3.4/3.5/3.6. Thanks!
--
nosy: +rbcollins
resolution: - fixed
stage: commit review - resolved
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23254
Robert Collins added the comment:
@Demian, I agree that there are more improvements we can make. The current
patch addresses the specific issue of this bug, and if you wished to make a new
issue with further improvements that would be great. I'm going to apply this
patch now though
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 rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue20556
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
buggy
Robert Collins added the comment:
ok, 3.6 only.
--
versions: +Python 3.6 -Python 2.7, Python 3.4, Python 3.5
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue20059
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 see there is a patch
Changes by Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net:
--
resolution: - fixed
stage: commit review - resolved
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23589
Robert Collins added the comment:
@ezio I think you should commit what you have so far. LGTM.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23144
Robert Collins added the comment:
@serhiy I think you should apply this: you're a committer, and no committers
have objected in over a year.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue20557
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 directly
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, Python 3.6
Robert Collins added the comment:
reset.
--
nosy: +rbcollins
resolution: not a bug -
stage: - needs patch
status: closed - languishing
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23447
Changes by Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net:
--
stage: commit review - patch review
status: pending - open
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22141
Changes by Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net:
--
stage: patch review - commit review
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue7
101 - 200 of 1065 matches
Mail list logo
