Martin Panter added the comment: Here is a patch with the proposed warning. I think “Error finding module specification” might be a bit better than the current “finding spec”, so I included that change. With the patch, this is what the messages look like:
$ ./python -m package.module /media/disk/home/proj/python/cpython/Lib/runpy.py:125: RuntimeWarning: 'package.module' found in sys.modules after import of any parent packages, but prior to execution; this may result in unpredictable behaviour warn(RuntimeWarning(msg)) /media/disk/home/proj/python/cpython/python: Error while finding module specification for 'package.module' (ValueError: package.module.__spec__ is not set) [Exit 1] The warning also occurs when running toplevel modules that are already imported: $ ./python -m runpy /media/disk/home/proj/python/cpython/Lib/runpy.py:125: RuntimeWarning: 'runpy' found in sys.modules after import of any parent packages, but prior to execution; this may result in unpredictable behaviour warn(RuntimeWarning(msg)) No module specified for execution FWIW, to fully avoid the regression and keep my original bug fixed at the same time, I think we would need a way for importlib.util.find_spec() to differentiate its own exceptions (the ValueError for missing __spec__, the ImportError for nonexistent parent package, etc) from exceptions raised by __init__.py code. The exceptions currently raised by find_spec() are not flexible enough for the runpy use case. ---------- keywords: +patch stage: -> patch review Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file43745/warn-imported.patch _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue27487> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
