Changes by Berker Peksag berker.pek...@gmail.com:
--
stage: test needed - patch review
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1234674
___
Steven Barker added the comment:
I've worked on this filecmp issue some more, and I have some new patches.
First up is a patch that only modifies the tests. It has one test that fails
without the behavior patch. The test patch also modifies some other tests so
that they will work after the
Changes by Steven Barker blckkn...@gmail.com:
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file36239/filecmp_behavior_and_doc_fix.diff
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1234674
___
Steven Barker added the comment:
I think that your test patch misses the confusing/possibly wrong case. That
case is when two files have the same contents, but different mtimes. If you
attempt a shallow comparison, you'll actually get a deep comparison (reading
the whole files) and a result
Andrew Kubera added the comment:
Attached is a couple extra tests which run filecmp on two files with different
content but the same length and relevant stat() info. This appears to
successfully check if the shallow options works correctly.
It uses time.sleep(1) to ensure the files start out
Steven Barker added the comment:
Here's a patch against the default branch that fixes filecmp.cmp's behavior
when shallow is True, including an update to the module's docs (correcting
the previous ambiguity discussed in the 2011 python-dev thread mentioned by
Sandro Tosi) and a couple of new
Steven Barker added the comment:
A recent Stack Overflow question (http://stackoverflow.com/q/23192359/1405065)
relates to this bug. The questioner was surprised that filecmp.cmp is much
slower than usual for certain large files, despite the shallow parameter
being True.
It is pretty clear
Changes by Chris Jerdonek chris.jerdo...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +cjerdonek
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1234674
___
___
Sandro Tosi sandro.t...@gmail.com added the comment:
Hello,
we recently received a this message on docs@ :
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/docs/2011-October/006121.html that's actually
related to this issue: how can we move it forward?
--
nosy: +sandro.tosi
versions: +Python 3.3
Changes by Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk:
--
versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.1, Python 3.2 -Python 2.6
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1234674
___
Changes by Daniel Diniz aja...@gmail.com:
--
stage: - test needed
type: - behavior
versions: +Python 2.6 -Python 2.4
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1234674
___
11 matches
Mail list logo