Lennart Regebro wrote: > 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?
Yep. > 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. Looks reasonable to me, although any backport to existing branches will be Benjamin's call for 3.1 and Barry's for 2.6 (as the respective release managers). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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
