Roundup Robot devnull@devnull added the comment:
New changeset cab204a79e09 by R David Murray in branch 'default':
#10424: argument names are now included in the missing argument message
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/cab204a79e09
--
nosy: +python-dev
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
With input from Michele on IRC I updated the tests to be more generic (not
depend on the order of the reported argument names) and moved the test I talked
about in my last message into a third unit test.
--
resolution: -
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
FYI, you can upload versions of the same patch with the same name and remove
old versions. The code review tool will remember versions, and it’s easier for
human if there’s only one patch.
--
versions: +Python 3.3 -Python 3.2
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
What I had in mind for the second test was something that did this (which I
think is legal from reading the docs):
parser.add_argument('foo')
parser.add_argument('bar', nargs='?', default='eggs')
with
Changes by Michele Orrù maker...@gmail.com:
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file22155/issue10424.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10424
___
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
I would remove the docstring from the new test class...if more tests of message
content are added that docstring won't be accurate. It really isn't needed.
(Also, shouldn't the test method be named test_missingarguments?)
I would also
Michele Orrù maker...@gmail.com added the comment:
Done.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file22129/issue10424_2.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10424
___
Michele Orrù maker...@gmail.com added the comment:
Unittest added.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file19729/issue10424.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10424
___
Changes by Michele Orrù maker...@gmail.com:
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file19646/issue10424.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10424
___
Michele Orrù maker...@gmail.com added the comment:
Ezio reviewed my patch; here there's the new version with some improvements.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file19736/issue10424.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Changes by Michele Orrù maker...@gmail.com:
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file19729/issue10424.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10424
___
Changes by Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org:
--
nosy: +eric.araujo
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10424
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Steven Bethard steven.beth...@gmail.com added the comment:
Yeah a new test class is fine.
And I checked the patch and it looks okay to me. My first thought was also
wait does that really work? but I see that positionals are all marked as
required when appropriate (look for the comment
Michele Orrù maker...@gmail.com added the comment:
This issue seems already fixed.
File: Lib/argparse.py
922 # if we didn't use all the Positional objects, there were too few
1923 # arg strings supplied.
1924 if positionals:
1925 self.error(_('too few
Steven Bethard steven.beth...@gmail.com added the comment:
No, it's exactly line 1925 that's the problem. The OP would like that to tell
him which arguments were missing instead of saying just 'too few arguments'.
The block below that is for checking required optionals/positionals. It won't
Michele Orrù maker...@gmail.com added the comment:
The attached patch solves this issue.
I haven't added any unittest because test_argparse.py is quite huge - over 4300
lines-, and I was undecided between «ArgumentError tests» (4251) and
«ArgumentTypeError tests» (4262). Any hint?
However,
Changes by Michele Orrù maker...@gmail.com:
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file19647/bug10424.py
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10424
___
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
There are currently no tests in argparse that test the content of error
messages, which is fairly standard for stdlib tests since the error messages
aren't considered part of the API (only the nature of the exception is). So
there's
New submission from Steven Bethard steven.beth...@gmail.com:
From a private email in respect to the following class of error messages:
parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(prog='PROG')
parser.add_argument('--foo')
parser.add_argument('--bar')
parser.add_argument('ham')
19 matches
Mail list logo
