Changes by Mike Kelly pi...@pioto.org:
--
nosy: +pioto
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8193
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
Committed in r79848 (trunk), r79849 (py3k), r79850 (2.6), r79851 (3.1). Thank
you!
--
resolution: - fixed
stage: patch review - committed/rejected
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker
Valerio Turturici turturici.vale...@gmail.com added the comment:
Thanks to you! This was my first patch, i'm very happy to contribute :)
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8193
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com added the comment:
The I'm not sure in my comment really was a question, rather than a definite
direction to conditionally retain the old test.
I've actually looked at the relevant C code in the zlib module now, and I agree
with Antoine that the original
Changes by Valerio turturici.vale...@gmail.com:
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file16711/8193.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8193
___
Valerio turturici.vale...@gmail.com added the comment:
Ok, so here the patch.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file16718/8193.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8193
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
Nick's point is that we should be testing both the value 0 and the value -1,
but that we should expect 0 to fail only if zlib.ZLIB_VERSION is less than
1.2.4. So you'll need to update your patch to keep the 0 test but put it
inside an
Valerio turturici.vale...@gmail.com added the comment:
This was clear. Now i make a new patch and then upload it.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8193
___
Changes by Valerio turturici.vale...@gmail.com:
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file16691/8193.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8193
___
Valerio turturici.vale...@gmail.com added the comment:
Here's the new patch. It's ok?
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file16707/8193.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8193
Michael Foord mich...@voidspace.org.uk added the comment:
Looks good to me.
--
nosy: +michael.foord
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8193
___
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
Shouldn't it be
zlib.ZLIB_VERSION '1.2.4'
rather than
zlib.ZLIB_VERSION = '1.2.4'
?
--
nosy: +pitrou
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8193
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
Are we safe using string comparison here? How likely is zlib to get into
double digit release numbers? (Too bad the version comparison stuff Tarek is
working on isn't already available.)
--
Amaury Forgeot d'Arc amaur...@gmail.com added the comment:
Note that the exact version which changed the behavior is 1.2.3.5, see
http://www.zlib.net/ChangeLog.txt
- Use zlib header window size if windowBits is 0 in inflateInit2()
--
___
Python
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
The else branch of the test should also check that 0 does *not* raise an error.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8193
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
Ok, actually Python is only echoing the error return from zlib here, so I don't
seen the point of the conditional. Just always test against -1 and we're done.
--
___
Python tracker
Valerio turturici.vale...@gmail.com added the comment:
@pitrou: because the op have the problem with 1.2.4 version of zlib. By the way
i had just always test against -1 in my first patch. Make i a new patch with a
simple correction with -1 in place of 0?
@david: i know, but i'm learning now
Changes by Valerio turturici.vale...@gmail.com:
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file16707/8193.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8193
___
Valerio turturici.vale...@gmail.com added the comment:
While i wait for what i have to do, i corrected the patch. But there is a
problem: the version of zlib '1.2.3.3' raise an error on distutils.version
module. The problem is caused by the regex expression in the
distutils.version module:
Valerio turturici.vale...@gmail.com added the comment:
Now i make patches for other versions of Python.
How i try if the patched test still work with the older zlib?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8193
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com added the comment:
I'm not sure simply changing the value is the right thing to do - with older
zlib versions (which do the wrong thing with 0), we definitely want that
exception to be triggered.
For newer versions, we want to check that passing in 0 worked as
Valerio turturici.vale...@gmail.com added the comment:
Seems that from Python 2.6 to 3.2 the test work fine. With -1 still raises the
exception. By the way, the original problem of Arkadiusz was with Python 2.5.
--
___
Python tracker
Valerio turturici.vale...@gmail.com added the comment:
The original test, with 0, pass in all versions of Python, from 2.6 to 3.2.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8193
___
Valerio turturici.vale...@gmail.com added the comment:
I try again and ValueError not raised. The test pass without problem, both
Python 2.6 and next.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8193
Valerio turturici.vale...@gmail.com added the comment:
P.S: the value it's default, 0.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8193
___
Valerio turturici.vale...@gmail.com added the comment:
I can pick up this bug.
--
nosy: +valerio.turturici
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8193
___
Valerio turturici.vale...@gmail.com added the comment:
I confirm that the bug still exists on trunk.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8193
___
Valerio turturici.vale...@gmail.com added the comment:
This is my first patch, i apologize if i make some mistakes.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file16691/8193.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8193
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
I imagine the problem exists in 3.x as well (unless someone proves otherwise),
so I'm adjusting the versions to the places it can be fixed.
Does the patched test still work with the older zlib?
--
nosy: +r.david.murray
priority:
Amaury Forgeot d'Arc amaur...@gmail.com added the comment:
According to http://www.zlib.net/ChangeLog.txt, since zlib 1.2.3.5::
- Use zlib header window size if windowBits is 0 in inflateInit2()
The failing test should be changed, for example::
self.assertRaises(ValueError,
New submission from Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
Arkadiusz Miskiewicz ar...@maven.pl:
Starting with zlib 1.2.4 zlib test suite fails with:
test test_zlib failed -- Traceback (most recent call last):
File /home/users/arekm/rpm/BUILD/Python-2.6.5/Lib/test/test_zlib.py,
Changes by Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +Arfrever
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8193
___
32 matches
Mail list logo
