Hello, On 2025/07/27 8:22, Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
> 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. We've already lost a test on under Python >= 3.14, if we cannot explain that the test is correct. I think such a test tests nothing. > @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") Briefly, no. I worry about our test using sys.getrefcount() does not work as we expected under modified reference counting. > Can you outline your idea for using weakrefs? Just collecting weakrefs of the target objects and check them before and after removing those objects. Cheers, -- Yasuhito FUTATSUKI <futat...@yf.bsdclub.org>
