Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Vinay,
Please take a look at the second patch -- 'logging_02.patch' -- with updated
docs
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file36614/logging_02.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
It's not that it doesn't work after fork, right? Should we add a recipe with
pid monitoring a self-pipe re-initialization?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue21998
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Is there a use case for sharing an event loop across forking?
I don't think so. I use forking mainly for the following two use-cases:
- Socket sharing for web servers. Solution: if you want to have a shared
sockets between multiple child processes, just
New submission from Yury Selivanov:
While writing a lexer for javascript language, I managed to hit the limit of
named groups in one regexp, it's 100. The check is in sre_compile.py:compile()
function, and there is even an XXX comment on this.
Unfortunately, I'm not an expert in this module
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Serhiy,
This is awesome!
Is is possible to split the patch in two, and commit the one that just
increases the groups limit to 3.4 as well?
Thank you
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Guys, when you update asyncio code, please make sure you sync your changes with
its upstream here: https://code.google.com/p/tulip/ to avoid commits like this
5f001ad90373
The goal is to have single source base for 3.4 and 3.5 in cpython repo and for
3.3
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Hm, strange, usually roundup robot closes issues. Anyways, closed now. Thanks
again, Joshua.
--
resolution: - fixed
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22448
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Thanks for the patch.
I've committed this to 3.5 only, as there is a slight chance that it breaks
backwards compatibility for some scripts.
--
resolution: - fixed
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
The problem is that map filter are classes, and their __init__ and __new__
methods do not provide any text_signature, hence signature uses the one from
object.__init__.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +larry
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22203
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I'm fine with either one, Serhiy. The static one looks good to me.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22437
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I left some comments in the codereview.
I think that having some half-baked solution is great, but I really would like
to see a proper fix, i.e. with remove_header and other methods fixed. Ideally,
you should add a UserDict implementation for headers
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I left some comments in the codereview.
I think that having some half-baked solution is great, but I really would like
to see a proper fix, i.e. with remove_header and other methods fixed. Ideally,
you should add a UserDict implementation for headers
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Oups, my previous comment is related to issue #5550, wrong window.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17319
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Ideally, we should just wait when PEP 455 lands, so we can use TransformDict
for headers.
Also, I don't think we can land a fix for this in any pythons out there, I
would focus on making this right in 3.5
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
A second version of the patch (tempfile_02), fixing more tempfile functions to
properly support relative paths. Please review.
--
nosy: +serhiy.storchaka
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file36740/tempfile_02.patch
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
--
resolution: - fixed
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue21397
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Thanks for the bug report and patch! Committed to 3.5.
--
resolution: - fixed
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1764286
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
@Berker Peksag: The patch looks fine, although I would rename 'redirect_stream'
- '_redirect_stream' or '_RedirectStream'
--
nosy: +yselivanov
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
@Berker Peksag: Also, please update the docs.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22389
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Antony, I agree regarding the poor naming of '_sanitize_dir()' helper. As for
your other suggestion, I think such a refactoring will actually make code
harder to follow (+ it's more invasive). Generally, I'm in favour of
transforming parameters like 'dir
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Note that abspath() can return incorrect result in case of symbolic links to
directories and pardir components. I.e. abspath('symlink/..').
Good catch.. Should I use os.path.realpath?
--
___
Python tracker rep
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
IMO it makes the code simpler and easier to understand.
But it's a tad slower, like 2-3% ;) You can test it yourself, we only tested it
on huge tasks list of 1M items.
FWIW, I'm not opposed to your patch
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Victor,
During the code review we tried the single loop approach. At the end Joshua
wrote a small benchmark to test if it's really faster to do it in one loop or
not. Turned out that single loop approach is not faster than loop+comprehension
(but it's
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Victor,
I've done some additional testing. Here's a test that Joshua wrote for the code
review: https://gist.github.com/1st1/b38ac6785cb01a679722
It appears that single loop approach works a bit faster for smaller collections
of tasks. On a list of 1
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Victor,
Here's an updated benchmark results:
NUMBER_OF_TASKS 1
ITERATIONS - 2000 out of 2000
2 loops: 0.004267875499863294
1 loop: 0.007916624497738667
TOTAL_BENCH_TIME 15.975227117538452
NUMBER_OF_TASKS 10
ITERATIONS
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
typo:
2 loops is always about 30-40% slower.
2 loops is always about 30-40% faster.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22448
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Eh, I knew something was wrong. Thanks.
NUMBER_OF_TASKS 10
ITERATIONS - 2000 out of 2000
2 loops: 0.045037232999675325
1 loop: 0.045182990999819594
TOTAL_BENCH_TIME 91.36706805229187
Please commit your change to the tulip repo too
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
--
resolution: - fixed
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22448
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +yselivanov
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22540
___
___
Python-bugs-list
New submission from Yury Selivanov:
Can you propose a format for it?
I'm not sure that including all arguments and their reprs is a good idea, as it
will make BA's repr too long.
--
nosy: +yselivanov
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
How about we just list bound arguments names, without values?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22547
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Yes and no ;)
You can have partially bound args, you can bind just one argument and use
defaults for the rest, etc. I agree that it's not an ideal solution, but it is
a sane compromise.
--
___
Python tracker rep
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Another thing I proposed in python-ideas is to have `__getitem__` delegate to
`.arguments`, so this proposal is similar in spirit, because I want to have
`__repr__` show information from `.arguments`.
Big -1 on __getitem__
To be honest I don't see
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
@Yury do you agree with this?
I think it's a perfectly normal behaviour. OSError is raised for valid kind of
objects, and TypeError is raised when you're passing something weird. That's a
pretty common practice is Python
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
--
resolution: - not a bug
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19472
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I don't think it a bug or that it's possible to do something about it.
Reloading modules in Python should usually be just avoided by all means.
--
nosy: +brett.cannon, yselivanov
___
Python tracker rep
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I think that the main problem is that '_stop_server' is called from a main
thread (by unittest machinery via addCleanup), whereas the loop is in the other
thread. asyncio code is not thread-safe in general.
If I change your code slightly to avoid using
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I think that Victor is right, it would be better to have two distinct entries
in the docs. Besides that - LGTM.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22389
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I think we should just fix the documentation, and update the code in example
with a proper check:
for param in sig.parameters.values():
if (param.name not in ba.arguments
and param.default is not param.empty):
ba.arguments[param.name
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
- modify tests to set the event loop to the newly created event loop, instead
of setting it to None
I'm not sure that this particular change is a great idea. I kind of liked that
unittests ensure that loop is passed everywhere explicitly in asyncio
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Should this be closed now?
Yes, let's close it.
David and Walter, you're welcome to re-open the issue if you want to discuss it
in more detail.
--
resolution: - wont fix
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Hi Victor,
I left you some feedback in code review.
I'm kind of leaning towards your proposal that we should force users to always
use safe API. But I also understand Guido's point.
--
___
Python tracker rep
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Patch attached. Tests pass on Linux.
--
keywords: +patch
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file37387/epoll_01.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23009
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file37388/epoll_02.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23009
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I agree. Please see another one.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23009
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Please add a comment explaining the complaint from epoll.poll() we're
trying to avoid here.
Good point! Committed.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23009
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
--
resolution: - fixed
stage: - resolved
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23009
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
@Claudiu, you should also add this test and make sure that it passes:
class Parent:
__doc__ = 'some documentation'
class Child(Parent):
__doc__ = None
assert getdoc(Child) is None
In other words -- we use __doc__ defined in parent
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Thank you for the patch, Claudiu!
--
nosy: +yselivanov
resolution: - fixed
stage: patch review - resolved
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue21740
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
--
resolution: - fixed
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1218234
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Fixed in 3.5. Not sure if we need to backport this to 3.4 and 2.7.
Closing this issue. Thanks to Björn Lindqvist and Berker Peksag!
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1218234
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
@Jason: done ;)
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1218234
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
--
versions: -Python 3.4
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue19903
___
___
Python-bugs
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I'd like to see PEP 468 explicitly rejected or postponed till 3.6 before we
make this change in 3.5.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23080
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
What do you think of this feature? Does it make sense to expose (internally)
the handle currently executed?
I think it's OK to have something like `loop._current_handle` to work ~only~ in
debug mode. Enhancing `loop.call_exception_handler` to use it also
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Berker, I agree. Let's wait till 3.6.
I still don't like having this function in the inspect module, and I still
don't understand why it should be there.
--
versions: +Python 3.6 -Python 3.5
___
Python tracker rep
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
The patch looks good.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23934
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
--
dependencies: +PEP 479: Change StopIteration handling inside generators
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24017
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
--
assignee: - yselivanov
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24017
___
___
Python-bugs
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Attaching a revised patch (all Victor's comments but asyncio changes)
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file39155/await_02.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24017
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Is there any noticeable performance increase with the patch?
Please attach results from https://hg.python.org/benchmarks
--
nosy: +yselivanov
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
In fact I will likely add tp_await in the next PEP iteration. I need it to
implement another feature.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24017
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Could we have type slots for the new special methods? Otherwise, implementing
the protocol in C would be fairly inefficient, especially for async iteration.
I don't think it's necessary to have slots for __aiter__, __anext__, __aenter__
and __aexit__
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +yselivanov
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24056
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Does the benchmark tool recompile the code every run?
Make sure you've bumped magic number in importlib/bootstrap; then make clean;
make
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org
New submission from Yury Selivanov:
Here's the first patch (git diff master..await). Should be easier to review and
work from there.
--
keywords: +patch
stage: - patch review
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file39147/async_01.patch
___
Python
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Attaching a patch generated with mercurial
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file39148/await_01.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24017
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file39149/await_01.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24017
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +asvetlov, yselivanov
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24017
___
___
Python
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file39147/async_01.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24017
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file39149/await_01.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24017
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: -yselivanov
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24108
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
--
dependencies: +Missing *-unpacking generalizations
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24017
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
--
priority: normal - release blocker
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24017
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I'll upload the most recent patch soon.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24017
___
___
Python
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
You sure can! Take it, deploy it, run the test suite, and then start writing
real code that uses it. When you find a problem, that's what needs help! :)
Thank you for this generic answer, Chris.
The reason I was asking is because issue #24017 depends
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Third patch attached. Victor, it would be great if you can review it!
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file39314/await_03.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24017
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Yury's patch mostly looks good to me, except:
Thanks!
* the check in contextlib should be against __cause__ rather than
__context__, and there should be a new test for this code handling path
Done. I've also added one test for correct handling
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Hi,
Please find attached an updated patch.
Summary of changes:
1. Most of feedback from Nick Coghlan and Serhiy Storchaka is applied;
2. Changes in difflib.py were reverted (unless we add the __future__ import
there right now there is no need to fix it);
3
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
--
assignee: - yselivanov
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22906
___
___
Python-bugs
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Hi Chris! Can I somehow help with the patch?
--
nosy: +yselivanov
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22906
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Nick, Berker,
Please see the updated patch.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file39323/pep0479.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22906
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
--
dependencies: +add a Generator ABC
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24017
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
New patch is attached.
Nick, I think that all of your feedback should be addressed in this patch.
Major changes:
1. There are two code flags now: CO_COROUTINE and CO_GENBASED_COROUTINE (I'm OK
to use another name, see my older comments). CO_COROUTINE
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Another iteration:
- support of new syntax in lib2to3
- collections.abc.Awaitable
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file39325/await_04.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Review sent - very nice work on this Yury.
Thanks a lot, Nick!
Highlights:
* I concur with Stefan that we should have a full PyCoroutineMethods struct
at the C level, with a tp_as_coroutine pointer to that replacing the
current tp_reserved slot
Do you
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Nick, Guido,
Updated patch attached.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file39344/await_06.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24017
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Guido, Nick, Victor,
Thanks for your reviews and guidance! The patch has been committed to the
default branch.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24017
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Thanks Nick and Berker for the reviews!
--
resolution: - fixed
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22906
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
--
stage: commit review - resolved
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22906
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Strange, the test suite was running just fine on my machine. I'll take a closer
look later today.
--
nosy: +Yury.Selivanov
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22906
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
I think it crashes in debug mode or something. Somewhere we did too many
decrefs.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22906
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Berker, buildbots should be happy now.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22906
___
___
Python
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Eric, is there any chance this can land in 3.5? OrderedDict is a heavily used
thing, everyone will benefit from a fast implementation. It's OK if we have an
imperfect (but fully compatible with existing OrderedDict) implementation in
3.5. We can optimize
Changes by Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +benjamin.peterson, yselivanov
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24176
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Signatures and Parameters are already hash able in 3.5. Please close the issue.
--
nosy: +Yury.Selivanov
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24188
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Thanks for the suggestion, Antoine!
--
resolution: - fixed
stage: patch review - resolved
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue24190
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
As for refleak -- I looked at it briefly: simple a = OrderedDict(); a = None
code leaks, so it must be somewhere in tp_new/tp_dealloc. And I know what
object is leaking - it's None.
--
___
Python tracker rep
Yury Selivanov added the comment:
Raymond, is there any chance you can review the patch before beta1? Sorry, for
bugging you with this, I just really hope we can have fast OrderedDict in 3.5.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http
501 - 600 of 3072 matches
Mail list logo
