On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Tim Peters wrote:
[...]
Hmm, will 2.5's doctest work under Python 2.4? I guess that's not
guaranteed, since I don't see any comment in doctest.py implying it needs
to be compatible with old Pythons.
doctest compatibility with 2.4 is neither a goal nor a non-goal for
On 4/16/06, John J Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I suppose I should have asked will 2.5's module traceback work with
Python 2.4?. I guess the answer is something resembling no, but of
course (?) the question I'm really interested in is how, without too much
effort or ugliness, can people
On 4/16/06, Paul Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, my instinct is that having the whole traceback in a
doctest is at least as ugly.
Well, it depends on what you use doctest for. If you use it to write
unit tests, the try/except solution is fine, and perhaps preferable.
If you use it
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On 4/16/06, Paul Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, my instinct is that having the whole traceback in a
doctest is at least as ugly.
You don't need the whole traceback -- e.g.:
If a URL is supplied, it must have an authority
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Tim Peters wrote:
[...]
[also John]
Sorry, please ignore the post of mine I'm replying to here.
I missed part of the thread, and Tim has already answered my question...
That's news to Tim ;-)
You mentioned use of '...' / ELLIPSIS, IIRC, so I assumed that would work
--
[John J Lee]
...
You mentioned use of '...' / ELLIPSIS, IIRC, so I assumed that would work
-- but it seems not, from your latest post (that I'm replying to here).
Different context -- answering why IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL exists
given that ELLIPSIS can do everything it does (provided you don't
On 4/14/06, Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 14 April 2006 02:31, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Tim Peters wrote:
I'm not the one to decide, but at some time the traceback module
should be rewritten to match the interpreter behavior.
No argument from me about that.
I
Sorry, please ignore the post of mine I'm replying to here.
I missed part of the thread, and Tim has already answered my question...
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, John J Lee wrote:
[...]
Assuming this is fixed in 2.5 final, is there some way to write doctests that
work on both 2.4 and 2.5? If not,
[John J Lee]
Assuming this is fixed in 2.5 final, is there some way to write doctests that
work on both 2.4 and 2.5? If not, should something like
doctest.IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL be added -- say
IGNORE_EXCEPTION_MODULE?
[also John]
Sorry, please ignore the post of mine I'm replying to here.
Tim Peters wrote:
[georg.brandl]
Author: georg.brandl
Date: Wed Apr 12 23:14:09 2006
New Revision: 45321
Modified:
python/trunk/Lib/test/test_traceback.py
python/trunk/Lib/traceback.py
python/trunk/Misc/NEWS
Log:
Patch #860326: traceback.format_exception_only() now prepends the
Tim Peters wrote:
[Georg Brandl]
Well, it's tempting to let the buildbots run the tests for you wink
Honestly, I didn't realize that doctest relies on traceback. Running
the test suite takes over half an hour on this box, so I decided to
take a chance.
Nobody ever expects that a checkin
Tim Peters wrote:
I'm not the one to decide, but at some time the traceback module should be
rewritten to match the interpreter behavior.
No argument from me about that.
I also think the traceback module should be corrected, and the test
cases updated, despite the objections that it may
[georg.brandl]
Author: georg.brandl
Date: Wed Apr 12 23:14:09 2006
New Revision: 45321
Modified:
python/trunk/Lib/test/test_traceback.py
python/trunk/Lib/traceback.py
python/trunk/Misc/NEWS
Log:
Patch #860326: traceback.format_exception_only() now prepends the
exception's
At 09:14 PM 4/12/2006 -0400, Tim Peters wrote:
The 2.4 backport of this patch should be reverted, since it changes
visible behavior (for example, all the 2.4 branch buildbot runs also
fail now).
Fine by me if we change the failing tests on the trunk to pass (noting
that should have been done
On Thursday 13 April 2006 11:14, Tim Peters wrote:
Patch #860326: traceback.format_exception_only() now prepends the
exception's module name to non-builtin exceptions, like the
interpreter itself does.
And all the trunk buildbot runs have failed since, in at least
test_decimal,
[Tim]
...
Fine by me if we change the failing tests on the trunk to pass (noting
that should have been done before checking in).
[Phillip]
It's not fine by me if the reason for the failure is that doctests trapping
specific exceptions no longer work with the patch.
If that's the case, the
Tim Peters wrote:
A less-desirable (IMO) alternative is to change the Python core to
display bare (non-dotted) exception names when it produces a
traceback.
Much less desirable, considering that there are modules
which define an exception just called error on the
assumption that you're going
17 matches
Mail list logo
