Patches item #1713041, was opened at 2007-05-04 15:13
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by draghuram
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1713041&group_id=5470
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Library (Lib)
Group: Python 2.6
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Raghuram Devarakonda (draghuram)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: fix for 1712742: corrects pprint's handling of 'depth'
Initial Comment:
The patch is really simple. Just change the way "maxlevels" is checked. I
couldn't find a way to have a test case for this bug.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Raghuram Devarakonda (draghuram)
Date: 2007-05-10 10:13
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=984087
Originator: YES
File Added: pprint.patch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Raghuram Devarakonda (draghuram)
Date: 2007-05-10 10:13
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=984087
Originator: YES
josm, I don't think there is need for a new test case. The one in the
patch correctly tests the code change. As Neal pointed out, the doc is
wrong to begin with.
I updated the patch with the doc change. Note that I replaced the current
example with a very simple one. I believe the current one is overly
complicated for this purpose. Comments are welcome, of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: jos (josm)
Date: 2007-05-10 07:56
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1776568
Originator: NO
I agree. The code and the doc should be consistent.
New test would be
Index: Lib/test/test_pprint.py
===================================================================
--- Lib/test/test_pprint.py (revision 55223)
+++ Lib/test/test_pprint.py (working copy)
@@ -195,7 +195,27 @@
others.should.not.be: like.this}"""
self.assertEqual(DottedPrettyPrinter().pformat(o), exp)
+ def test_depth(self):
+ nested_tuple = (1, (2, (3, (4, (5, 6)))))
+ nested_dict = {1: {2: {3: {4: {5: {6: 6}}}}}}
+ nested_list = [1, [2, [3, [4, [5, [6, []]]]]]]
+ self.assertEqual(pprint.pformat(nested_tuple),
repr(nested_tuple))
+ self.assertEqual(pprint.pformat(nested_dict), repr(nested_dict))
+ self.assertEqual(pprint.pformat(nested_list), repr(nested_list))
+
+ result_tuple = {'lv1': '(...)',
+ 'lv2': '(1, (...))'}
+ result_dict = {'lv1': '{...}',
+ 'lv2': '{1: {...}}'}
+ result_list = {'lv1': '[...]',
+ 'lv2': '[1, [...]]'}
+ for i in [1, 2]:
+ key = 'lv' + `i`
+ self.assertEqual(pprint.pformat(nested_tuple, depth=i),
result_tuple[key])
+ self.assertEqual(pprint.pformat(nested_dict, depth=i),
result_dict[key])
+ self.assertEqual(pprint.pformat(nested_list, depth=i),
result_list[key])
+
class DottedPrettyPrinter(pprint.PrettyPrinter):
def format(self, object, context, maxlevels, level):
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Neal Norwitz (nnorwitz)
Date: 2007-05-10 02:18
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=33168
Originator: NO
Yes, that's the example I'm referring to. In the doc, it shows 5 numbers
and one ... for 6. Without your patch it shows 7 numbers and with your
patch it shows 6 numbers. So even with your patch the doc and code don't
agree (they are off by one, rather than 2 as is currently the case).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Raghuram Devarakonda (draghuram)
Date: 2007-05-09 10:44
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=984087
Originator: YES
Hi Neal,
I assume you are referring to the example
>>> import parser
>>> tup = parser.ast2tuple(
... parser.suite(open('pprint.py').read()))[1][1][1]
>>> pp = pprint.PrettyPrinter(depth=6)
>>> pp.pprint(tup)
in the document. Is that correct? I ran this example with and without my
patch. Without the update, the example printed 7 levels which is one level
too deep. With the patch, it printed 6 levels, which seems correct to me.
# without patch. prints 7 levels.
$ ../python/python testdoc.py
(268, (269, (326, (303, (304, (305, (306, (...))))))))
# with patch. prints 6 levels.
$ ../python/python testdoc.py
(268, (269, (326, (303, (304, (305, (...)))))))
I am attaching the file testdoc.py which contains the doc example. I just
wanted to confirm that this is what you are referring to.
File Added: testdoc.py
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Neal Norwitz (nnorwitz)
Date: 2007-05-09 02:56
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=33168
Originator: NO
I notice in the doc an example which doesn't work with this patch. It
still prints one level too deep. The doc seems correct to me, but I don't
have strong feelings any way. The attached patch makes the doc example
work as expected. The doc should really be updated with an example more
like:
>>> pp = pprint.PrettyPrinter(depth=6)
>>> pp.pprint((1, (2, (3, (4, (5, (6, 7)))))))
(1, (2, (3, (4, (5, (...))))))
>>> pp = pprint.PrettyPrinter(depth=1)
>>> pp.pprint(1)
1
>>> pp.pprint([1])
[...]
The updated patch causes the new tests to fail. Could you update the
test/code/doc to all be consistent?
File Added: pp2.diff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Raghuram Devarakonda (draghuram)
Date: 2007-05-07 10:49
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=984087
Originator: YES
josm, thanks for the test case. I incorporated it into the patch. BTW, I
changed "str" to "repr" as I think "repr" is closer to what pformat does.
File Added: pprint.patch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: jos (josm)
Date: 2007-05-05 05:02
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1776568
Originator: NO
Your patch looks good and worked fine.
Wouldn't it be nice to add a test case for this problem to
test_pprint.py?
The following is just draft patch to add the test case.
Index: Lib/test/test_pprint.py
===================================================================
--- Lib/test/test_pprint.py (revision 55144)
+++ Lib/test/test_pprint.py (working copy)
@@ -195,7 +195,22 @@
others.should.not.be: like.this}"""
self.assertEqual(DottedPrettyPrinter().pformat(o), exp)
+ def test_depth(self):
+ nested_tuple = (1, (2, (3, (4, (5, 6)))))
+ nested_dict = {1: {2: {3: {4: {5: {6: 6}}}}}}
+ nested_list = [1, [2, [3, [4, [5, [6, []]]]]]]
+ self.assertEqual(pprint.pformat(nested_tuple),
str(nested_tuple))
+ self.assertEqual(pprint.pformat(nested_dict), str(nested_dict))
+ self.assertEqual(pprint.pformat(nested_list), str(nested_list))
+
+ lv1_tuple = '(1, (...))'
+ lv1_dict = '{1: {...}}'
+ lv1_list = '[1, [...]]'
+ self.assertEqual(pprint.pformat(nested_tuple, depth=1),
lv1_tuple)
+ self.assertEqual(pprint.pformat(nested_dict, depth=1), lv1_dict)
+ self.assertEqual(pprint.pformat(nested_list, depth=1), lv1_list)
+
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Raghuram Devarakonda (draghuram)
Date: 2007-05-04 15:15
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=984087
Originator: YES
File Added: pprint_test.py
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1713041&group_id=5470
_______________________________________________
Patches mailing list
Patches@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/patches
