classification
Title: Other Python implementations may not expose the module name in datetime type names
Type: Stage: patch review
Components: Tests Versions: Python 3.10, Python 3.9, Python 3.8, Python 3.7
process
Status: open Resolution:
Dependencies: Superseder:
Assigned To: Nosy List: jstasiak, p-ganssle, wmeehan
Priority: normal Keywords: patch

Created on 2020-11-17 15:24 by wmeehan, last changed 2020-11-18 23:15 by jstasiak.

Pull Requests
URL Status Linked Edit
PR 23345 open wmeehan, 2020-11-17 15:58
Messages (4)
msg381248 - (view) Author: William Meehan (wmeehan) * Date: 2020-11-17 15:26
This just requires some changes to test_datetime and test_hash
msg381269 - (view) Author: Paul Ganssle (p-ganssle) * (Python committer) Date: 2020-11-17 18:24
Is this an actual problem for another implementation of Python?

Is there some reason to think that we intended the repr of a `datetime` object to be implementation-defined?
msg381271 - (view) Author: William Meehan (wmeehan) * Date: 2020-11-17 18:34
For Python implementations that change the underlying object structure, it's not necessarily possible to recreate the `tp_name` that would be exposed in CPython. The `datetime` ends up in `__module__`, while only the type name ends up in `__name__`. There's no way to tell that the value in `__module__` actually came from `tp_name` in the first place.
msg381274 - (view) Author: Paul Ganssle (p-ganssle) * (Python committer) Date: 2020-11-17 19:02
What is an example of another Python implementation that has this property? Is there a concrete issue open somewhere that this is solving?

I am not unsympathetic to the idea of accommodating other implementations of Python, but this is very abstract and I think the assumption is probably that if we're explicitly testing for something and we don't say it's implementation-defined that it is part of the language spec.

If there's some evidence that stuff like this is intended to be implementation-defined always, or there's some concrete problem that we can solve (and possibly also add tests to avoid regressions), I'd be much more comfortable with something like this.
History
Date User Action Args
2020-11-18 23:15:23jstasiaksetnosy: + jstasiak
2020-11-17 19:02:59p-gansslesetmessages: + msg381274
2020-11-17 18:34:36wmeehansetmessages: + msg381271
2020-11-17 18:24:43p-gansslesetnosy: + p-ganssle
messages: + msg381269
2020-11-17 15:58:26wmeehansetkeywords: + patch
stage: patch review
pull_requests: + pull_request22237
2020-11-17 15:26:07wmeehansetmessages: + msg381248
2020-11-17 15:24:52wmeehancreate