#12728: sage's spkg sources should use correct include paths instead of having
../../../../whatever everywhere
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
Reporter: Snark | Owner: Snark
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-5.10
Component: build | Resolution:
Keywords: | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers: Volker Braun, Jeroen Demeyer
Authors: Julien Puydt | Merged in:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
Comment (by Snark):
Ok, I determined that
sage.misc.sageinspect.sage_getargspec(sage.sets.disjoint_set.OP_represent)
gets interpreted in sageinspect.py like this:
1. is it an abstract method, line 1284? No.
2. is it callable, line 1287? Yes.
3. try to read the argspec, line 1290 - AttributeError line 1291, pass
(line 1292)!
4. is it a function, line 1293? No.
5. is it a method, line 1295? No.
6. is it a class instance, line 1297? No.
7. is it a class, line 1311? No.
8. does it have some attributes, line 1314? No.
9. fallback to the 'else' of line 1318!
10. let's call sage_getsource, line 1320, and get None.
11. line 1321-1324: since we got None, we set func_obj=obj.
12. try something line 1328 and fail with AttributeError
13. catch this exception and try something else line 1331 and fail with
TypeError
14. catch this exception line 1332
15. let's do (no try this time): "return
inspect.ArgSpec(*_sage_getargspec_cython(sage_getsource(obj)))", because
obviously, the fact that a few lines above sage_getsource got us None
already won't be a problem! BOOM!
I interpret those findings as meaning that something with my patches has
made sage_getsource(obj) return None, and this then uncovered a nice bug
in sageinspect. Does this sound sensible? Should I then file a bug against
sageinspect.py? [Of course, I'll now investigate why None gets returned]
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12728#comment:43>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
