Changes by Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com:
--
resolution: - fixed
stage: patch review - committed/rejected
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16761
Roundup Robot added the comment:
New changeset c0266ba8e4c6 by Serhiy Storchaka in branch '2.7':
Issue #16761: Raise TypeError when int() or long() called with base argument
only.
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/c0266ba8e4c6
New changeset e4ea38a92c4d by Serhiy Storchaka in branch '3.2':
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
When this patch is updated because of the commit for issue 16790, in 3.x can
the edited test cases be moved to the top of the test class per the following
comment (as appropriate)?
I will do this in issue16784. In any case I am going to move a large part
Raymond Hettinger added the comment:
Why did you backport this change after being advised not to do it?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16761
___
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
Sorry, I have not noticed your advice before I did commit (it took me a lot of
time). Should I now revert my changes to 2.7, 3.2 and 3.3?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Antoine Pitrou added the comment:
If PyPy gets away with a different behaviour, there's probably nobody relying
on it, so I'd say the backports are safe.
--
nosy: +pitrou
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16761
Raymond Hettinger added the comment:
Should I now revert my changes to 2.7, 3.2 and 3.3?
Once committed, I would say leave it in as long as you're confident that no
currently working code will break as a result. In general, be very
conservative about backporting any behavioral change.
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
When this patch is updated because of the commit for issue 16790, in 3.x can
the edited test cases be moved to the top of the test class per the following
comment (as appropriate)?
http://bugs.python.org/issue16790#msg178282
As stated there, this will make
Changes by Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com:
--
assignee: - serhiy.storchaka
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16761
___
___
Raymond Hettinger added the comment:
I don't think a backport is appropriate for this kind of change.
--
nosy: +rhettinger
versions: -Python 2.7, Python 3.2, Python 3.3
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16761
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
Sharing only those tests is not enough. We must revise all tests and extract
common code to the separated class. I think this is too large change and
unrelated to this issue. I will open a new issue for int tests enhancement and
refactoring.
--
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
It's enough not to make the problem worse, which is why I suggested it and what
I wanted to avoid. If you copy-paste the tests you're adding now, it worsens
the problem and makes it that much more tedious to fix later on (and to
maintain in the meantime).
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
Here is a patches which contains only minimal set of required changes. Other
unrelated changes will be done in issue16784.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file28439/int_without_x-2.7_3.patch
Added file:
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
Let's eat an elephant piece by piece. Only one issue per patch.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16761
___
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
Yes, it is a better approach. At first glance, the patches look okay to me.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16761
___
Gregory P. Smith added the comment:
Having just looked added something to test_int as part of issue16772... There
appears to be an explicit test _for_ this strange behavior in there:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/60f7197f991f/Lib/test/test_int.py#l233
test_base_arg_with_no_x_arg
I have
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
See this thread:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-December/123283.html
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16761
___
New submission from Serhiy Storchaka:
Currently int() ignores base keyword argument if first string argument omitted.
Such usage is no other than bug. The proposed patch raises TypeError in such
case.
See also discussion at Python-Dev:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.cvs/92290 .
Changes by Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +asvetlov, chris.jerdonek, terry.reedy
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file28415/int_without_x-3.2.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16761
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
In additional some int creation tests backported to old Python versions.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file28416/int_without_x-2.7.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Changes by Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +ezio.melotti
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue16761
___
___
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
Patches updated to address Cris's comments on Rietveld (thank you, Cris, for
review). In additional new tests added. I think merging test_int and test_long
is hard task and should be done in separated issue. Instead I have merged and
simplified some test
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
This is good work. Thanks.
I think merging test_int and test_long is hard task and should be done in
separated issue.
I meant share rather than merge. For the tests you're adding, isn't it
simply a matter of putting the test cases into a separate mixin
23 matches
Mail list logo
