On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Stefan Behnel <[email protected]> wrote: > Given that this is a change that may potentially break stuff and we don't > even have tests for it, I think we should not let this delay the release of > 0.13 any further than we already did anyway. Most people don't test > development releases, so I expect a lot of bug reports after the release of > 0.13 that will make 0.13.1 (and maybe even 0.13.2) a close follow-up anyway. > > However, if someone writes suitable tests for all affected special methods > in a timely fashion, I'd be +0 on inclusion, just for the same reason of > getting a 0.13.1 out soon anyway, in which we may still rip it back out.
What would you consider suitable tests? All I can think of is to write Cython classes that define all the special methods, then write Python code that extracts each special method as a bound method and then calls it. Can you think of more tests? I'll try to write these tests tonight. I'm sorry I didn't include tests in the patch; it was getting late and I wanted to post what I had before I went to bed. What about the two known behavioral changes (__getattr__ turns into __getattribute__ (mentioned on the ticket), and docstrings are lost (as Robert suspected and I just verified)). Are these enough that you don't think the patch should get in to 0.13? (In which case I would start working on the next version of the patch, instead of writing tests for this version.) Carl _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
