Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
Thank you for your contribution Daniel.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15836
___
___
Changes by Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com:
--
resolution: - fixed
stage: commit review - resolved
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15836
___
Changes by Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com:
--
assignee: michael.foord - serhiy.storchaka
versions: +Python 2.7
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15836
___
Roundup Robot added the comment:
New changeset 84d7ec21cc43 by Serhiy Storchaka in branch 'default':
Issue #15836: assertRaises(), assertRaisesRegex(), assertWarns() and
https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/84d7ec21cc43
--
nosy: +python-dev
___
Python
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
Applied to 3.5 only, because this issue looks rather as new feature (preventing
possible user error) and there is minimal chance to break existing tests (see
issue24134).
--
type: behavior - enhancement
versions: -Python 2.7, Python 3.4
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
Core developers left a couple of notes and the patch itself is outdated. Here
is updated patch that addresses all comments. It also extends the checking to
assertRaisesRegex(), assertWarns() and assertWarnsRegex().
There is a risk to break existing
Martin Panter added the comment:
I posted a question on Reitveld, but the new patch looks fine in general.
I wouldn’t worry too much about the (ValueError, None) case, since such code is
probably already broken. If it is a problem though, maybe this could only go
into the next feature relase
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
Ping.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15836
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Berker Peksag added the comment:
Since the patch has been reviewed by several core developers, I think you can
go ahead and commit it.
I'm +0 on the 2.7 version of the patch (the isinstance(e, types.ClassType) part
looks fine, but I haven't tested it). It's probably not worth to change
Michael Foord added the comment:
The change to unittest is fine. I'd prefer the tests tweaking as Ezio suggested.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15836
___
Michael Foord added the comment:
I like the first variant suggested by Ezio as more concise. I'll try and look
at the substance of the patch today.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15836
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
I'm +0.5 for the variant suggested by Berker and Ezio.
Do you have time to look at the patch Michael? I could commit modified patch
(there is one defect in tests).
--
nosy: +serhiy.storchaka
___
Python tracker
Changes by Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com:
--
versions: -Python 2.7
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15836
___
___
Changes by Martin Panter vadmium...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +vadmium
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15836
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Changes by Berker Peksag berker.pek...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +berker.peksag
stage: patch review - commit review
versions: +Python 3.4
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15836
___
R. David Murray added the comment:
Ezio requested I comment on his suggestion: I still prefer the try/except form,
but I don't feel strongly about it.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15836
Claudiu Popa added the comment:
This seems to be a reasonable fix. Michael, could you have a look at this
patch, please?
--
nosy: +Claudiu.Popa
versions: +Python 3.5 -Python 3.2, Python 3.3, Python 3.4
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Michael Foord added the comment:
The patch is just waiting for me to look over it and commit. I'll get to it
ASAP.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15836
___
Daniel Wagner-Hall added the comment:
Is anything blocking this patch's submission?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15836
___
___
Ezio Melotti added the comment:
Would using assertRaises to test assertRaises in the tests be to meta?
--
assignee: - michael.foord
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15836
___
R. David Murray added the comment:
Ezio: I don't really care whether or not it would be too meta, if you look at
the two versions, it is a *lot* clearer what is being tested in the try/except
version than it is in the assertRaises version.
--
___
Ezio Melotti added the comment:
I missed the initial patch. What I was thinking about was to use simply
with self.assertRaises(TypeError):
self.assertRaises(1)
instead of:
+ctx = self.assertRaises(TypeError)
+with ctx:
+self.assertRaises(1)
+
Daniel Wagner-Hall added the comment:
Cool, my contributor agreement has been received, please merge if happy!
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15836
___
Michael Foord added the comment:
Yep, certainly worth fixing. When 3.3 is out the door I will look at applying
this to all branches.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15836
Changes by Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +ezio.melotti
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15836
___
___
R. David Murray added the comment:
Since it is a bugfix it can be applied at any time now. Checkins to default
will end up in 3.3.1 and 3.4. (Only features need to wait until after 3.3 is
branched in the main repo.)
--
___
Python tracker
New submission from Daniel Wagner-Hall:
The following code in a unittest test is a no-op:
self.assertRaises(lambda: 1)
I would expect this to fail the test, because I naively assumed omitting the
exception class would act as:
self.assertRaises(BaseException, lambda: 1)
verifying that *any*
R. David Murray added the comment:
Sounds like a reasonable suggestion. However, the patch is not valid for 2.7,
since there exceptions can be old style classes.
--
nosy: +r.david.murray
stage: - patch review
versions: -Python 2.6, Python 2.7, Python 3.1
R. David Murray added the comment:
I put some review comments in rietveld (you should have gotten an email).
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15836
___
Daniel Wagner-Hall added the comment:
I seem to be getting exceptions why trying to upload a new patch to rietveld,
either by the web interface (in several browsers), or by upload.py - attaching
new patchset here
Also, if I wanted to backport to 2.7 including an isinstance(e,
R. David Murray added the comment:
Uploading the new patch here is the correct procedure. It will automatically
be uploaded to rietveld as well.
If by how you mean how to submit a backport, just create a patch against 2.7
tip and upload it separately.
Revised patch looks good.
--
Changes by R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com:
--
nosy: +michael.foord
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15836
___
___
Daniel Wagner-Hall added the comment:
Added patch for 2.7.
I'll sign the contributor form just as soon as I can get to a printer.
Thanks for taking me through my first contribution.
--
versions: +Python 2.7
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file27081/issue15836-2.7.patch
R. David Murray added the comment:
You are welcome, and thanks for your contribution.
--
components: +Library (Lib) -Tests
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15836
___
34 matches
Mail list logo
