On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 21:24, Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> wrote:
>
> 2009/12/10 Lennart Regebro <rege...@gmail.com>:
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 20:25, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote:
> >> Since the intent of IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL is to make doctests immune to
> >> implementation version specific changes, it seems to me that extending its
> >> technical meaning is required to carry out its intent.
> >
> > Would this be considered bugfixy enough to get into 3.1-branch as well
> > as 2.7? It really is damn annoying when you try to port doctests to
> > Python 3, and it would be great if we wouldn't have to wait for 3.2.
>
> I think a patch would be helpful before deciding that.
Should I start a bug report in the tracker for this?
The diff in the code is:
# Another chance if they didn't care about the detail.
elif self.optionflags & IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL:
- m1 = re.match(r'[^:]*:', example.exc_msg)
- m2 = re.match(r'[^:]*:', exc_msg)
- if m1 and m2 and check(m1.group(0), m2.group(0),
+ m1 = re.match(r'(?:[^:]*\.)?([^:]*:)', example.exc_msg)
+ m2 = re.match(r'(?:[^:]*\.)?([^:]*:)', exc_msg)
+ if m1 and m2 and check(m1.group(1), m2.group(1),
self.optionflags):
outcome = SUCCESS
But obviously I have patches for both py3k and trunk with tests and
updated documentation as well.
As you see the diff is pretty simple, it's just a more complex regex.
--
Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok
http://regebro.wordpress.com/
+33 661 58 14 64
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
