Change by Mario Corchero :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +28943
stage: -> patch review
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/30756
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issu
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Great! I'll put something together then. If you have any preference about the
implementation or any pointer on the way you think should be done, please let
me know.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.py
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Vinay would you consider a patch for logging where dictConfig allows taking
objects directly in addition to the reference id?
That would allow the following:
```
def noErrorLogs(param):
return 1 if param.levelno < 40 else 0
logconfig_d
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Right, I believe this is indeed broken.
This code:
```
class A:
def m(self, a=None): pass
from unittest import mock
with mock.patch.object(A, "m", autospec=True):
A.m.side_effect = print
A().m(1)
```
prints: <__main__.A object at 0
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Thread open in Python ideas:
https://discuss.python.org/t/add-folder-for-python-customizations-sitecustomize/6190/5
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue42
Mario Corchero added the comment:
> Shouldn't this be discussed on Python-Ideas? I'm pretty sure this is a big
> enough change that it will need a PEP.
Indeed, I wanted to see if there was interest in the feature. That is probably
a better place to start.
> If you need
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
type: -> enhancement
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue42654>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscrib
New submission from Mario Corchero :
Following the conversations in https://bugs.python.org/issue33944, wanted to
discuss the support for a __sitecustomize__ folder that will hold python
scripts to be executed at startup. Similar to `sitecustomize.py` but allowing
different stakeholders of a
Mario Corchero added the comment:
> I found one interesting usage of sys.__excepthook__ in
> code.InteractiveInterpreter:
That is exactly what I wished this was there for hehe. We are installing a
custom version of excepthook and wanted to check if the user had chan
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +22116
stage: -> patch review
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/23218
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issu
New submission from Mario Corchero :
The sys module contains __excepthook__ to recover sys.excepthook if necessary.
The same is not present in the threading module, even if threading.excepthook
is exposed.
--
components: Library (Lib)
messages: 380651
nosy: mariocj89, vstinner
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +22041
stage: -> patch review
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/23125
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issu
New submission from Mario Corchero :
When working in a C extension from a non-python created thread which calls
PyGILState_Ensure as it later calls a Python callback on user code, I wished
there was a way to set the trace function similar to what a native Python
thread would do.
We could
New submission from Mario Idival :
After new version 3.9, the util module from importlib does not exists anymore
>>> import importlib
>>> importlib.util.find_spec('enum')
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
AttributeError: mod
Change by Mario Idival :
--
type: -> crash
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue41958>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscrib
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Oh, well spotted. We could add some guards around the code in mock to still
work when key stdlib functionality is mocked out, but this might make the mock
code quite messy. Specially as we will have to make sure that not only the
function we call are safe
Mario Gonzalez added the comment:
hey u, send mi a mail, u need my help
and i need u
mario the last one
mario.cro...@gmail.com
--
nosy: +Mario Gonzalez
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue896
Mario Corchero added the comment:
For the record, I have no strong preference over either implementation.
@voidspace preferred offline the new mock class, but sadly the rationale is
lost in the physical word.
--
___
Python tracker
<ht
New submission from Mario de OOurtzborun :
Is there any reason why slice objects aren't subclassable? I want a mutable
slice object, but there is no way to create one that will work with lists or
tuples. And __index__ method requires to return int. I want to prepare a git
merge request
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Having not looked deeply at it but with the reproducer, running a quick bisect,
it points to this commit:
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/77b3b7701a34ecf6316469e05b79bb91de2addfa
I'll try having a look later at the day if I can manage to free
Mario Corchero added the comment:
> My suggestion would be to add `parent` to the docs @xtreak links to as a way
> to resolve this issue.
+1, we should probably add it on the docs of the constructor here
https://docs.python.org/3/library/unittest.mock.html#unittest.mock.Mock as it
i
Mario Corchero added the comment:
If you refer to https://bugs.python.org/issue35357, this issue refers to
`parent` at the time of creation of the mock. In the init it is still
referenced as "parent".
The question is whether we want to also mangle "parent" in the __ini
Mario Corchero added the comment:
@cjw296 or @michael.foord might know why the attribute was exposed as plain
"parent". It was added more than 8 years ago and I am unnable to follow the git
commit history.
They should then decide whether this is intenteded to be used by the users
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
pull_requests: +17075
stage: test needed -> patch review
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/17606
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issu
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Makes total sense, I think we should get this for 3.9.
Not sure I'll backport this, even if a bugfix it might cause unexpected changes
(Though I'd be OK with it, given that calling stop twice causes no issue).
I'm happy to push a PR with the
Mario Corchero added the comment:
The reason why it seems that "no arguments are beeing passed" is because the
exception is not being raised by you, but by mock itself when the exception is
trying to be created. When an exception type is passed as side_effect, the mock
modules r
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Thanks! We can look at adding a copying mock if we see people needing it, but
yeah, adding copy by default would be quite complex if we don't want to break
existing users.
--
stage: -> resolved
status: open -
Mario Corchero added the comment:
This might be painful in certain scenarios, like when using wraps on functions
that modify the arguments:
```
def func(d):
return d.pop("key")
>>> def func(d):
... return d.pop("key")
...
>>> m
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
pull_requests: +15715
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/16094
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue17
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Spoke offline with @xtreak, I'll be sending a PR for this to take over the
existing one.
@lisroach proposed a new name, EventMock to differentiate it from any awaitable
async notation.
@michael.foord suggested using `mock_timeout` as the arg
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
nosy: +mariocj89
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue37251>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Mario Corchero added the comment:
> What do you mean by "it is not documented"? It is documented here:
As it says:
"This function uses a user-configurable function to convert the creation time
to a tuple. By default, time.localtime() is used; to change this for a
pa
Mario Corchero added the comment:
AFAIK, the converter attribute is only to "be set" with a function of such
signature. It is not documented that it can be used and it is only used on the
format time function.
The only situation where this might break someone is if they in
New submission from Mario Corchero :
Users that want to provide a custom template for the timestamp part of logging
cannot customize the milliseconds part of asctime.
They can use the msecs attribute of the Logger but that effectively requires to
break the formatting in two parts. Note that
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Note that even if not in the standard library I've seen this attributed used
and documented quite often.
Example: https://docs.python-guide.org/writing/logging/#or-print
I would really suggest making it private as mentioned before to make sure this
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Thanks! I was wondering about it but saw no comment about it, issue or anything
in the history. At least we have now this issue :).
Would you like that I move this to `_disabled` and have a setter for `disabled`
that emits a deprecation warning so we can
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +13575
stage: -> patch review
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/13687
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issu
New submission from Mario Corchero :
Just realised the "disabled" attribute of the Logger class is not documented in
https://docs.python.org/3/library/logging.html#logging.Logger.
Any reason to not have it documented? I'll send a PR otherwise.
This comes as I was trying to po
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Closing as unable to reproduce. Please comment if you can reproduce the issue
and we can have a further look.
--
stage: -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/i
Mario added the comment:
Unfortunately the underlying cause of this issue has not been addressed, nor
discussed.
There is now a way to workaround the different behaviour in Windows and Linux
and it is possible to use the new call to make virtual environment work in
Windows as they already
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Note that "handlers" cannot be disabled. This applies only to loggers.
Also, the following code shows that disabling the logger does indeed prevents
all logs in emitted by that logger from appearing:
```
import logging
pare
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Agree, for the general case I think it makes sense that this is fixed in pyside.
Hijacking __signature__ python-wide sounds like it can cause other issues, if
they need such a hack I would suggest finding a way (in pyside) to allow for
mock to work.
I
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +13048
stage: -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue36820>
___
___
Py
New submission from Mario Corchero :
There are multiple places in the standard library where the code captures an
exception and reraises it later (outside of the original except).
This is known to cause a cycle as saving the exception has a traceback that
eventually points back to the
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Kooning great! I would Add a test for the following (I think both fails with
the proposed impl):
- The mock is called BEFORE calling wait_until_called_with
- I call the mock with arguments and then I call wait for call without
arguments.
- using keyword
Mario Corchero added the comment:
I think this is REALLY interesting!, there are many situations where this has
been useful, it would greatly improve multithreading testing in Python.
Q? I see you inherit from Mock, should it inherit from MagicMock?
I'd say send the PR and the discussio
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
nosy: +mariocj89
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue36518>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Quite a tricky bug!
Indeed @xtreak the `_call_matcher` is using the `__init__` signature. I think
this is a bug introduced in https://bugs.python.org/issue17015. There is a mix
of the fact that spec in Mock also can accept classes (not instances) whilst
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Great, all yours :) I'll be happy to review.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue35512>
___
___
Pytho
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Interesting, `patch` does resolve it when the patched function is called (see
https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/175421b58cc97a2555e474f479f30a6c5d2250b0/Lib/unittest/mock.py#L1269)
vs patch.dict that resolves it at the time the patcher is created - when
Mario Corchero added the comment:
I would suggest applying the fix with the latest version in mind to keep the
codebase clean. If you want to backport it to previous versions of Python you
can do it manually through a PR targetting the right branch.
I think the process is to set up a label
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Makes sense!
I'd not align them though but that might be my view as I generally don't like
aligning text like that.
Also if you feel that the exceptions read "weird" with the first sentence is
empty, an option might be to say the calls
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
pull_requests: +10296
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32299>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Agree that it sounds reasonable to just set `__signature__` to tell `inspect`
where to look at (thanks PEP 362 :P). Not an expert here though.
For the partials bug, I'll add Pablo as we were speaking today about something
similar :) but that mig
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +10234
stage: test needed -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issu
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
pull_requests: +10215
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue3533>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Mario Corchero added the comment:
I'll get ready a PR with a good set of tests and the fix for the original
issue. This is quite an interesting bug :)
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/is
Mario Corchero added the comment:
I can indeed reproduce the issue. The problem seems to be here:
https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/54ba556c6c7d8fd5504dc142c2e773890c55a774/Lib/unittest/mock.py#L1041
The simplified current logic in that code is:
- call side_effect, save the return value
Mario Corchero added the comment:
If this is to be done we should not change those tests, I am sure there is code
validating calls relying on its "tupleness". Example:
```
>>> import unittest.mock
>>> m = unittest.mock.Mock()
>>> m(1)
>>>
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
resolution: -> fixed
stage: patch review -> resolved
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.or
Mario Corchero added the comment:
iter is initialized by using side_effects, not return_value.
The statement "According to the documentation .return_value should be identical
to the object returned when calling the mock" works only when it return_value
has been used to define the
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +9476
stage: -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue35082>
___
___
Py
New submission from Mario Corchero :
Calling dir on unittest.mock.Mock will return deleted attributes.
This is a result of the way del is implemented in Mock, which just sets a
sentinel in the child mocks, so an AttributeError is raised if the attribute is
later accessed.
We can just check
Mario added the comment:
On 13/10/2018 17:37, Steve Dower wrote:
>
> Steve Dower added the comment:
>
> I meant why are you using an embedded application with a virtual environment?
> What sort of application do you have that requires users to configure a
> virtual e
Mario added the comment:
On 10/10/2018 01:11, Steve Dower wrote:
>
> Steve Dower added the comment:
>
> We'll need to bring in venv specialists to check whether using it outside of
> Py_Main() is valid. Or perhaps you could explain what you are actually trying
> to
Mario added the comment:
On 08/10/2018 17:54, Steve Dower wrote:
>
> Steve Dower added the comment:
>
>> Py_SetProgramName() should be a relative or absolute path that can be used
>> to set sys.executable and other values appropriately.
>
> Key point here is *c
Mario added the comment:
Is there any agreement on what is wrong with the current code.
The key in my opinion is the double purpose of sys.executable and that in Linux
and Windows people have taken the two different points of view, so they are
both right and wrong at the same time
Mario added the comment:
On 21/09/2018 21:44, Steve Dower wrote:
>
> Steve Dower added the comment:
>
> I meant returning the full name of the process is intentional. But you're
> right that overriding it should actually override it.
>
> I found the prior
Mario added the comment:
On 18/09/2018 19:24, Steve Dower wrote:
>
> Steve Dower added the comment:
>
> That executable doesn't appear to be in a virtual environment - you should be
> running C:\TEMP\venv\abcd\Scripts\python.exe
>
> Does that resolve your pro
New submission from Mario :
According to the doc Py_GetProgramFullPath() should return the full path of the
program name as set by Py_SetProgramName().
https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/init.html#c.Py_GetProgramFullPath
This works well in Linux, but in Windows it is always the name of the
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +6579
stage: -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue33541>
___
___
Py
New submission from Mario Corchero :
When checking on ways to improve coverage of datetime related functions I found
this function that seems not to be used anyware.
It is private and mangled, should be safe to remove.
Creating the issue as requested in the PR:
https://github.com/python
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +5433
stage: -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32821>
___
___
Py
New submission from Mario Corchero :
As discussed in python-ideas, it would be good to have a recipe on how to
configure the logging stack to be able to log ``ERROR`` and above to stderr and
``INFO`` and below to stdout.
It was proposed to add it into the cookbook rather than on the standard
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
pull_requests: +5321, 5322
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32206>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsub
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
pull_requests: +5321
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32206>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
pull_requests: -5301
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32206>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Sent a PR for the fix. I'll update PRs for trace. profile does not need it
Thanks a lot for bringing it up Jason!
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/is
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +5302
stage: test needed -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issu
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
pull_requests: +5301
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32206>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Mario Corchero added the comment:
OK, just managed to reproduce it.
This appears only when you run a python script as a module. Running a module
with __main__ does not show the issue.
Will get a patch ready
--
___
Python tracker
<ht
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Hi Jason, thanks a lot!
I’ll have a look to the bug you reported on Monday. Out for holidays atm ^^
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Thanks Nick. I've sent patches for all of them but `dis`.
`dis` does not "run" the code.
Adding the -m option is basically identical to just running it on the
__main__.py if the module is runnable or on the __init__ if it is not.
If you think
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +4995
stage: -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32515>
___
___
Py
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Just finished a draft on the one for trace: issue32515
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue9325>
___
___
Pytho
New submission from Mario Corchero :
Add an option to trace to be able to do `python3 -m trace -t --module
my.module.name` to be able to trace a runnable module the same way we can do
with scripts.
As we want trace to not include the lines in runpy I am going to with the
approach of pdb
Mario Corchero added the comment:
Related issue for improved executable module support for standard library
modules that run other scripts: https://bugs.python.org/issue9325
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32
Mario Corchero added the comment:
I've created an issue + PR for profile which basically ports the change in
cProfile: issue32512
I am not able to add it as a dependency on this one (rights issue probably).
--
___
Python tracker
&
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +4993
stage: -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32512>
___
___
Py
New submission from Mario Corchero :
Add an option to profile to be able to do `python3 -m profile -m
my.module.name` to be able to profile the module the same way cProfile allows
since issue 21862
--
components: Library (Lib)
messages: 309627
nosy: mariocj89
priority: normal
severity
Mario Corchero added the comment:
pdb and cProfile are covered.
If no one is working on it, do you want me try to put through a patch for
"profile" and "trace"?
Should I create a separate issue if so?
>From Issue 17473 it will leave only:
doctest: Which might be con
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
pull_requests: +4978
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32206>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +4682
stage: -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32267>
___
___
Py
New submission from Mario Corchero :
At the moment strptime misparses all microsecond specifications that do not
have exactly 6 digits as it is just converted into an int and considered
microsecond.
This bug was introduced with the implementation in bpo-31800
Example:
_strptime._strptime
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +4654
stage: -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue32206>
___
___
Py
New submission from Mario Corchero :
Since PEP 338 we can run python modules as a script via `python -m module_name`
but there is no way to run pdb on those (AFAIK).
The proposal is to add a new argument "-m" to the pdb module to allow users to
run `python -m pdb -m my_module_name
New submission from Mario Corchero :
At the moment we can get an operator that performs multiple "gets" in object
attributes. Example:
>>> getter = operator.attrgetter("child1.child2")
>>> o = mock.Mock()
>>> getter(o)
On the other hand, itemg
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
nosy: +mariocj89
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue30699>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Change by Mario Corchero :
--
keywords: +patch
pull_requests: +4253
stage: -> patch review
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue30699>
___
___
Py
Mario Corchero added the comment:
I've always understood instance as a way to say "I am passing this class but I
want to force the autospec on the instance"
For example, given
```
class X:
def __init__(self):
raise
```
You can do `unittest.mock.create_autospec(X
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
