➜
This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
Created on 2017-03-14 23:03 by r.david.murray, last changed 2022-04-11 14:58 by admin. This issue is now closed.
| Pull Requests | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| URL | Status | Linked | Edit |
| PR 681 | closed | ammar2, 2017-03-16 02:19 | |
| Messages (7) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| msg289628 - (view) | Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) *  |
Date: 2017-03-14 23:03 | |
http://bugs.python.org/issue24622 made reminded me that a while back we added tests for the keyword module that includes a test that if you run it, you get the result that is checked in. The same thing could be done for the token.py module. And then we could add a cross-check test that tokenize.py has all the symbols defined as well. |
|||
| msg289702 - (view) | Author: Ammar Askar (ammar2) * |
Date: 2017-03-16 02:19 | |
This is my first real substantial testing change so I'd appreciate all feedback. The way I did the cross-check doesn't actually rely on any of the information from the test_keyword style regeneration test. I think this approach is a lot simpler, and will prevent mistakes like the one seen in http://bugs.python.org/issue24622 |
|||
| msg289704 - (view) | Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) * |
Date: 2017-03-16 03:17 | |
The cross check test itself doesn't depend on a regeneration, but it does depend on the information in token.h. Meanwhile the validity of *that* is checked by regeneration in your test_token tests. This is exactly what I had in mind :). So, I haven't done a full review, but the quick glance I took looked good. |
|||
| msg297532 - (view) | Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * |
Date: 2017-07-03 04:20 | |
See also issue30455. Don't these issues conflict one other? |
|||
| msg297533 - (view) | Author: Berker Peksag (berker.peksag) * |
Date: 2017-07-03 04:47 | |
Yes, they are. I like the idea of generating C files from Lib/token.py. Let's see what David thinks about issue 30455. |
|||
| msg297575 - (view) | Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) * |
Date: 2017-07-03 13:07 | |
I have no opinion on that issue. I opened this issue to fix a hole in our validation, but if that hole no longer exists after that (subsequently opened :) issue is resolved, then this isn't needed (sorry, Ammar, and thank you for your work!) |
|||
| msg298192 - (view) | Author: Ammar Askar (ammar2) * |
Date: 2017-07-12 02:22 | |
No problem, closing this in favor of issue 30455. |
|||
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2022-04-11 14:58:44 | admin | set | github: 73998 |
| 2017-07-12 02:22:57 | ammar2 | set | status: open -> closed resolution: out of date messages: + msg298192 stage: patch review -> resolved |
| 2017-07-03 13:07:22 | r.david.murray | set | messages: + msg297575 |
| 2017-07-03 04:47:04 | berker.peksag | set | nosy:
+ berker.peksag messages: + msg297533 |
| 2017-07-03 04:20:14 | serhiy.storchaka | set | nosy:
+ serhiy.storchaka messages: + msg297532 |
| 2017-07-03 03:38:28 | berker.peksag | set | stage: needs patch -> patch review |
| 2017-03-16 03:17:31 | r.david.murray | set | messages: + msg289704 |
| 2017-03-16 02:19:46 | ammar2 | set | nosy:
+ ammar2 messages: + msg289702 |
| 2017-03-16 02:19:29 | ammar2 | set | pull_requests: + pull_request558 |
| 2017-03-15 09:50:53 | Jim Fasarakis-Hilliard | set | nosy:
+ Jim Fasarakis-Hilliard |
| 2017-03-14 23:03:41 | r.david.murray | create | |