Author ncoghlan
Recipients bquinlan, brian.curtin, georg.brandl, lukasz.langa, ncoghlan, pitrou, r.david.murray, vinay.sajip
Date 2010-12-07.01:33:34
SpamBayes Score 8.65252e-12
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
Actually, I take it back. The default state of logging appears to do the right thing with no special handler installed - both the .critical() and .exception() messages are written out to stderr by default, so the futures tests pass even after Brian's patch is applied.

So I think removing the handler installation code is the right thing to do, even if (as it turns out) it doesn't fix the test failure.

I also thought of a more minimal way to reproduce the test failure that makes it clear pydoc isn't really involved:

  ./python -m test test_concurrent_futures test_logging test_concurrent_futures

The first execution of the test will pass, the second will fail (both with and without Brian's patch to remove the handler installation).

Adding Vinay to the nosy list - I suspect Antoine is right that the logging tests are leaving existing loggers in a slightly unhealthy state. A better save/restore in might be a place to start, but I don't know the internals of the logging package well enough to improve on what I already added.
Date User Action Args
2010-12-07 01:33:36ncoghlansetrecipients: + ncoghlan, georg.brandl, vinay.sajip, bquinlan, pitrou, r.david.murray, brian.curtin, lukasz.langa
2010-12-07 01:33:36ncoghlansetmessageid: <>
2010-12-07 01:33:34ncoghlanlinkissue10626 messages
2010-12-07 01:33:34ncoghlancreate