Nikita Sobolev <[email protected]> added the comment:
Or, maybe this is a correct thing to do. Consider this case. Let's say we now
check that `node` has `lineno` and exclude ones that don't.
Then, we write this test (in `Lib/test/test_unparse`):
```
def test_unparse_nodes_without_lineno(self):
# https://bugs.python.org/issue46073
def create_module(ignores):
return ast.Module(
body=[
ast.FunctionDef(
name="items_needed",
args=ast.arguments(
posonlyargs=[], args=[],
kwonlyargs=[], kw_defaults=[], defaults=[],
),
body=[ast.Pass()], decorator_list=[],
),
],
type_ignores=ignores,
)
ast1 = create_module([])
self.assertASTEqual(ast1, ast.parse(ast.unparse(ast1)))
ast2 = create_module([ast.TypeIgnore(lineno=1, tag='')])
# This fill fail without `ast2 = ast.fix_missing_locations(ast2)`
self.assertASTEqual(ast2, ast.parse(ast.unparse(ast2),
type_comments=True))
```
In this case the second `assert` will fail, because the resulting codes would
be different:
```
# "original"
def items_needed(): # type: ignore
pass
# unparsed
def items_needed():
pass
```
So, basically users will get different code. Which is not a good thing.
So, maybe raising an error that some `node` does not have `lineno` is good
after all?
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue46073>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
