[issue45593] SpooledTemporaryFile.truncate returns None
Change by Maciej Urbański : -- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +27466 stage: -> patch review pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/29197 ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue45593> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue45593] SpooledTemporaryFile.truncate returns None
New submission from Maciej Urbański : Related: https://bugs.python.org/issue40287 https://bugs.python.org/msg319145 -- components: Library (Lib) messages: 404914 nosy: rooter priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: SpooledTemporaryFile.truncate returns None type: behavior versions: Python 3.11 ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue45593> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue26528] NameError for built in function open when re-raising stored exception from yielded function
Maciej Urbański <roo...@kyberian.net> added the comment: Reproduced in both v3.6.4 and v3.7.0a3 -- nosy: +rooter versions: +Python 3.6, Python 3.7 ___ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue26528> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue15013] smtplib: add low-level APIs to doc?
Maciej Urbański added the comment: I guess documenting `data` method may still be needed after all. For now I followed the suggestions from comments to best of my ability. Please see attached patch. -- keywords: +patch nosy: +rooter Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file45086/issue15013.patch ___ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue15013> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue27908] del _limbo[self] KeyError
Maciej Urbański added the comment: To address @Dima.Tisnek concern I have changed exception message in case thread start process is merely in progress. I kept `self._started` check under a lock so we can avoid more extreme race condition of one thread checking `self._started` right before another sets it and exits the limbo. As for testing `self._started` under a lock, but setting it without one. I'm avoiding it only because of performance reasons. The read is super cheap, while notification of `.set()` is more complex, so if aesthetics are only reasons for doing it there then I would advise against holding that lock while executing it. Of course I could also do a `self in _active` check under a lock, but that is slightly more costly, than `self._started` check and not any more useful. I may be prematurely optimizing things, but people tend to like they threads to startup ASAP. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file44677/issue27908_2.patch ___ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue27908> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue27908] del _limbo[self] KeyError
Maciej Urbański added the comment: @Dima.Tisnek, only reason for having both of these conditions together is so I won't have to repeat the same error message in the code at little price of the performance in this edge case (trying to start the same thread multiple times). Unless I'm missing something there should be no way how it would make this lock required for setting `self._started`. -- ___ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue27908> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue27908] del _limbo[self] KeyError
Maciej Urbański added the comment: Successfully reproduced on 2.7.12 and 3.5.2 . Currently there seems to be no protection against starting the same thread twice at the same time. What was checked was only if start operation already finished once. Attached patch makes it so limbo, our starting threads' waiting room, is checked first. -- keywords: +patch nosy: +rooter versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.5 Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file44643/issue27908.patch ___ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue27908> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
