[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Gregory P. Smith added the comment: New changeset fb4c28c032e26b3cdbe67eae3769d45207ac3507 by Gregory P. Smith (Miss Islington (bot)) in branch '3.6': [3.6] bpo-22635: Update the getstatusoutput docstring. (GH-3435) (#3439) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/fb4c28c032e26b3cdbe67eae3769d4

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Gregory P. Smith added the comment: New changeset 2eb0cb4787d02d995a9bb6dc075983792c12835c by Gregory P. Smith in branch 'master': bpo-22635: Update the getstatusoutput docstring. (#3435) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/2eb0cb4787d02d995a9bb6dc075983792c12835c -- ___

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Changes by Roundup Robot : -- pull_requests: +3436 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mai

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Changes by Gregory P. Smith : -- pull_requests: +3432 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Gregory P. Smith added the comment: marking "closed/resolved" but also "won't fix" as the behavior change remains, but we've done the safest thing at this point: documented the fact. -- resolution: -> wont fix stage: -> resolved status: open -> closed

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Christian Heimes added the comment: New changeset dee54f6010ee2df60322c350a5f1dc8bfcf367d6 by Christian Heimes (Miss Islington (bot)) in branch '3.6': [3.6] bpo-22635: subprocess.getstatusoutput doc update. (GH-3398) (#3411) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/dee54f6010ee2df60322c350a5f1d

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Changes by Roundup Robot : -- pull_requests: +3411 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Gregory P. Smith added the comment: New changeset 738b7d9766e1a794bfba0d515a467ba833ca by Gregory P. Smith in branch 'master': bpo-22635: subprocess.getstatusoutput doc update. (#3398) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/738b7d9766e1a794bfba0d515a467ba833ca -- __

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Changes by Gregory P. Smith : -- pull_requests: +3404 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://m

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Nick Coghlan added the comment: Issue filed with six about this: https://github.com/benjaminp/six/issues/207 It turns out to be somewhat timely on that side as well, as it turns out that six has a not-yet-released change adding "six.moves.commands", which doesn't currently account for this ina

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Gregory P. Smith added the comment: I'll get to it. acassaigne's patches are already a good attempt at that, i'll probably find wording tweaks to make as I apply them. -- assignee: docs@python -> gregory.p.smith ___ Python tracker

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

STINNER Victor added the comment: IMHO it's too late to change *again* subprocess.getstatusoutput() behaviour. Otherwise, it would mean that a complex test like "if not((3, 4) <= sys.version_info < (3, 7))" would be needed to workaround the bug... Whereas right now, basically we only have to c

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Gregory P. Smith added the comment: If you want something API compatible that can be used in a Python 2 and 3 application that wants a getstatusoutput() API I think an appropriate place to put it would be to add a commands modules to https://pypi.python.org/pypi/past/ with a consistent getstat

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Gregory P. Smith added the comment: I intend subprocess32 to Python 2 only. Python 3 users should use the standard library subprocess module. subprocess32 does not include getstatusoutput() or getoutput() functions as those are available in the Python 2 stdlib commands module. -- __

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Nick Coghlan added the comment: I've added Greg to the nosy list and filed an issue with subprocess32 about this: https://github.com/google/python-subprocess32/issues/30 I did that mainly to make sure they don't inadvertently backport this regression, but also to ask if subprocess32 might pote

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

STINNER Victor added the comment: Bug mentionned on a Twitter discussion: https://twitter.com/zhenech/status/89040992829441 -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Cassaigne added the comment: I add a crosslink to WEXITSTATUS function. According David Murray advices. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file45079/issue22635-4.diff ___ Python tracker _

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

R. David Murray added the comment: Ah, I see. So the function's name is wrong now, too :(. OK, I guess using exitcode is more accurate then. Surprising that the original docs did not link to os.WEXITSTATUS. Maybe we could make a crosslink in the versionchanged entry to os.WEXITSTATUS in the

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

STINNER Victor added the comment: issue22635-3.diff: LGTM. R. David Murray: "I disagree with Victor. The name of the function is "getstatusoutput". I think the docs should continue to use (status, output) as the names for the return values." In Python, we use "exitcode" or "returncode" nam

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

R. David Murray added the comment: I disagree with Victor. The name of the function is "getstatusoutput". I think the docs should continue to use (status, output) as the names for the return values. The clarification is that 'status' is now the raw return code, not the shifted return code t

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Cassaigne added the comment: According to the Victor's review, I remove "Pay attention" words and change exit code by returncode. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file45078/issue22635-3.diff ___ Python tracker

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Cassaigne added the comment: I improve the patch a little bit, following the recommendations of the Stinner's review. I replace "status" mention by "exit code". -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file45077/issue22635-2.diff ___ Python tracker

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Cassaigne added the comment: I correct the doc concerning subprocess.getstatusoutput(cmd) function. More specifically the part on examples and I add a quick explanation about how are manage the return code. -- keywords: +patch nosy: +acassaigne versions: +Python 3.6, Python 3.7 Added fi

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Changes by Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis : -- nosy: +Arfrever ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscri

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

R. David Murray added the comment: But it was also a feature addition: getoutput had not been *intended* to work on Windows. I understand why the mistake was made (the argument that it was a bug has weight), but the fact that a versionchanged was needed mentioning 3.3.4 indicates it wasn't re

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

STINNER Victor added the comment: > You are right, it did change in 3.3.4 (see issue 10197). That change should > not have been applied to 3.3, ... The purpose of the issue #10197 was to fix a bug on Windows: getoutput() didn't work. -- ___ Python

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

R. David Murray added the comment: You are right, it did change in 3.3.4 (see issue 10197). That change should not have been applied to 3.3, and obviously there was a missing test concerning the return code format. At this point I think we are stuck with changing the documentation. The new

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

STINNER Victor added the comment: > Can someone with privileges edit my original message to remove the junk at > the beginning of each paragraph? It's not possible to edit a message, only to remove it. I don't like removing the initial message of an issue. Don't worry, (U) looks a bullet, it

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

Josh Rosenberg added the comment: Ah blech. Can someone with privileges edit my original message to remove the junk at the beginning of each paragraph? Habit from an old job. Wish I could just edit the message. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

STINNER Victor added the comment: Oh, I now understand why I feel guilty, I proposed a patch rewriting getstatusoutput() in the issue #10197. My patch ends with: +if os.name != 'nt': +# convert status to be interpreted according to the wait() rules +sts = sts << 8 This fix

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

STINNER Victor added the comment: It probably comes from this change: --- changeset: 86879:c34e163c0086 branch: 3.3 parent: 86870:dbff708e393f user:Tim Golden date:Sun Nov 03 12:53:17 2013 + files: Lib/subprocess.py Lib/test/test_subprocess.py Misc/NEWS desc

[issue22635] subprocess.getstatusoutput changed behavior in 3.4 (maybe 3.3.4?)

New submission from Josh Rosenberg: (U) The examples for the function still show the return code in the form os.popen would produce (a program exiting with status 1 would return 256 as the status), but the new code from #10197 makes the status 1, not 256. (U) This is a breaking change for code