[issue1187] pipe fd handling issues in subprocess.py on POSIX

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Additional test modified and committed in r87712, thank you! -- nosy: +pitrou resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> committed/rejected status: open -> closed versions: -Python 2.7, Python 3.1 ___ Python track

[issue1187] pipe fd handling issues in subprocess.py on POSIX

Jeffrey Finkelstein added the comment: Here's a patch which adds the test from 1187-dustin.patch for the py3k branch. The test passes without any additional changes to the py3k code. -- nosy: +jfinkels Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file18902/issue1187.patch __

[issue1187] pipe fd handling issues in subprocess.py on POSIX

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: I am assuming 3.x has problem. Would be good to verify. 1187-dustin.patch has test + fix. -- nosy: +tjreedy stage: -> patch review versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.1, Python 3.2 -Python 2.5, Python 2.6 ___ Python tr

[issue1187] pipe fd handling issues in subprocess.py on POSIX

pw added the comment: Stumbled on this bug a different way in 2.5.2. My code worked in 2.5, which included change 51793, but fails in 2.5.1 and beyond due to the reimplementation in 53294. Dustin's patch, applied by hand to 2.5.2, fixes things for me. -- nosy: +pw versions: +Python 2.

[issue1187] pipe fd handling issues in subprocess.py on POSIX

Dustin J. Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Thoughts on this patch? ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list

[issue1187] pipe fd handling issues in subprocess.py on POSIX

Dustin J. Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Hmm.. I see why you didn't write a unit test for this! Attached is a patch with a unit test that tickles this behavior, along with Andrew's fix. Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file10338/1187-dustin.patch ___

[issue1187] pipe fd handling issues in subprocess.py on POSIX

Andrew Nissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: In reference to Dustin's entry: That's the point; the expected behavior is that subprocess should write data to the named files, without the fix, it doesn't. With the subprocess module as it stands, there are a number of cases that will not be

[issue1187] pipe fd handling issues in subprocess.py on POSIX

Dustin J. Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: I see that, on running your fix_fileno.py, nothing is output to /tmp/stdout.test. I don't necessarily see the link to your fix. Could you describe the problem and/or add comments to your patch to explain why these checks are made? --

[issue1187] pipe fd handling issues in subprocess.py on POSIX

Changes by Sean Reifschneider: -- assignee: -> astrand nosy: +astrand priority: -> normal versions: +Python 2.6 -Python 2.4 __ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __

[issue1187] pipe fd handling issues in subprocess.py on POSIX

Changes by Martin v. Löwis: -- keywords: +patch __ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.p

[issue1187] pipe fd handling issues in subprocess.py on POSIX

Andrew Nissen added the comment: This patch (subprocess.fix_fileno.udiff) made against subprocess.py (Revision 55604)appears to give the desired behavior __ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ subproce

[issue1187] pipe fd handling issues in subprocess.py on POSIX

New submission from Andrew Nissen: Revision 53293 appears to have missed some of the logic inherent in the previous code. There also appears to be problems with the way that the dup2 calls are made that can result in a behavior different then intended under a number of circumstances. fix_fileno