Max Rothman added the comment:
Hi, I'd like to wrap this ticket up and get some kind of resolution, whether
it's accepted or not. I'm new to the Python community, what's the right way to
prompt a discussion about this sort of thing? Should I have taken it to one o
Max Rothman added the comment:
Hi, just wanted to ping this again and see if there was any movement.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue30
Max Rothman added the comment:
> Generally the called with asserts can only be used to match the *actual
> call*, and they don't determine "equivalence".
That's fair, but as unittest.mock stands now, it *does* check equivalence, but
only partially, which is more conf
Max Rothman added the comment:
I'd be happy to look at submitting a patch for this, but it'd be helpful to be
able to ask questions of someone more familiar with unittest.mock's code.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.pyt
New submission from Max Rothman:
For a function f with the signature f(foo=None), the following three calls are
equivalent:
f(None)
f(foo=None)
f()
However, only the first two are equivalent in the eyes of
unittest.mock.Mock.assert_called_with:
>>> with patch('__main__.f'
Max Rothman added the comment:
I think that makes sense, but there's still an open question: what should the
correct way be to allow dashes to be present at the beginning of positional
arguments?
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.py
Max Rothman added the comment:
Martin: huh, I didn't notice that documentation. The error message definitely
could be improved.
It still seems like an odd choice given that argparse knows about the expected
spec, so it knows whether there are any options or not. Perhaps one could
e
New submission from Max Rothman:
In the case detailed below, argparse.ArgumentParser improperly parses the
argument string "-_":
```
import argparse
parser = argparse.ArgumentParser()
parser.add_argument('first')
print(parser.parse_args(['-_']))
```
Expected be
