That's a child issue of #23883, created to propose a patch fixing cgi module's __all__ list.

I don't think test() should be exposed as public API.

Well, but it is documented in public docs:

    cgi.test()

    Robust test CGI script, usable as main program. Writes minimal HTTP headers and formats all information provided to the script in HTML form.


Should I remove it from __all__ and probably from the docs, too?

I don’t see why test() should be a special case. A few of the other functions seem to be just for debugging and testing too, e.g. print_environ().

Is there any advantage to having the test case in a separate MiscTestCase class, as opposed to the existing CgiTests class?

Martin:

> Is there any advantage to having the test case in a separate MiscTestCase class, as opposed to the existing CgiTests class?

Other than "the first test [well, that I know of] for __all__ list was in separate class called MiscTestCase so each next one follows the same fashion" and "sometimes such test would fit into some existing TestCase class and sometimes not, so let's always put it into separate class for cohesion" - no, I don't see any.

OK. This is unusual name for public function and looks rather as internal function for manual module testing, but since it is documented, we perhaps should add its name to __all__. The patch LGTM.

For this particular case, there is only one existing test class called CgiTests, without any special setup or handling. It seems too arbitrary to have a second class called MiscTestCase, so I would prefer the new test be added to CgiTests.

New changeset 74ed6f3fb8d2 by Martin Panter in branch 'default':
Issue #27105: Add cgi.test() to __all__, based on Jacek Kołodziej’s patch
https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/74ed6f3fb8d2

Thanks for the patches Jacek. This one I committed after moving the test into CgiTests.

Thank you, Martin. :)