Hi,
the buildbots are flaky because two repr() tests for userdict and
functools.partial fail every now and then. The test cases depend on a
fixed order of keyword arguments the representation of userdict and
partial instances. The improved hash randomization of PEP 456 shows its
power. I haven't s
Am 21.11.2013 18:57, schrieb Tim Peters:
> Best to change the failing tests. For example, _they_ can sort the
> dict keys if they rely on a fixed order. Sorting in general is a
> dubious idea because it can be a major expense with no real benefit
> for most uses.
I don't consider repr() as a per
[Christian Heimes]
> the buildbots are flaky because two repr() tests for userdict and
> functools.partial fail every now and then. The test cases depend on a
> fixed order of keyword arguments the representation of userdict and
> partial instances. The improved hash randomization of PEP 456 shows
+1 on unsorted repr(). It makes it obvious that the collection is not sorted.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
> Am 21.11.2013 18:57, schrieb Tim Peters:
>> Best to change the failing tests. For example, _they_ can sort the
>> dict keys if they rely on a fixed order. Sor
Correct.
On Nov 21, 2013 10:15 AM, "Daniel Holth" wrote:
> +1 on unsorted repr(). It makes it obvious that the collection is not
> sorted.
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Christian Heimes
> wrote:
> > Am 21.11.2013 18:57, schrieb Tim Peters:
> >> Best to change the failing tests. For examp
On 22 Nov 2013 04:12, "Christian Heimes" wrote:
>
> Am 21.11.2013 18:57, schrieb Tim Peters:
> > Best to change the failing tests. For example, _they_ can sort the
> > dict keys if they rely on a fixed order. Sorting in general is a
> > dubious idea because it can be a major expense with no real
