Den lör 26 juli 2025 kl 07:22 skrev Yasuhito FUTATSUKI <
futat...@yf.bsdclub.org>:
> Hello,
>
> On 2025/07/25 22:36, Joe Orton wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 12:37:56AM +0900, Yasuhito FUTATSUKI wrote:
> >> Thank you for testing.
> >>
> >> The intention of those tests are detection of extra reference
> >> remaining after calling callback functions. However, with deferred
> >> reference counting and biased reference counting, it cannot work
> >> as I(we?) expected. So I don't think the changes on r1926575 is
> >> correct if no one cannot explain why this part of the test could
> >> pass without modifying expected refcount.
> >>
> >> I propose:
> >>
> >> * Use weakref for the tests of this purpose
> >> * Until those test is rewrited with using weakref, simply skip
> >> them on Python >= 3.14.
> >
> > Thanks for looking at this, that seems reasonable to me. The attached
> > reverts r1926575 and adds skipIf decorators, does it look correct? I'll
> > run it through a build too.
>
> The patch looks good. Also, I've run check-swig-py on Python 3.11 and
> it did not skip those tests as we expected.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Yasuhito FUTATSUKI <futat...@yf.bsdclub.org>
>
>
Hi,
I'm not very fond of the idea of just disabling the tests under 3.14,
chances are we'll never come to re-writing to weakrefs and then we've
basically lost a test.
@Yasuhito FUTATSUKI <futat...@yf.bsdclub.org> Do I understand it correctly
that you are concerned why we can keep the existing expected count ...
434: for baton in editor.batons:
435: self.assertEqual(sys.getrefcount(baton[2]), 2,
^ HERE
436: "leak on baton %s after replay without errors"
437: % repr(baton))
438: del e_baton
... but we have to modify it ...
439: self.assertEqual(sys.getrefcount(e_ptr), expected,
^ HERE
440: "leak on editor baton after replay without
errors")
Can you outline your idea for using weakrefs?
Cheers,
Daniel
