STINNER Victor <victor.stin...@haypocalc.com> added the comment: > I think your partA patch makes sense.
I can fix part A and B in two commits. > It would benefit from fsencode/fsdecode functions rather > than manually doing the 'surrogateescape' thing everywhere. I choosed to drop the idea of fsdecode() (patch for part A doesn't decode bytes anymore, it only encodes str). #8514 has now a short and simple patch. I'm waiting for the final decision on #8514 to commit the part A. > Also, could you add a unittest for os._execvpe to test its behavior? os._execvpe() is a protected function. issue8513_partA.patch includes a test for subprocess. test_subprocess in two twices: with _posixsubprocess (C module) and with the pure Python implementation. The pure Python implementation calls os._execvpe(), that's why I patched also this function in my patch ;-) ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8513> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
