Message123512
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 regrtest.py 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 01:33:36 | ncoghlan | set | recipients:
+ ncoghlan, georg.brandl, vinay.sajip, bquinlan, pitrou, r.david.murray, brian.curtin, lukasz.langa |
2010-12-07 01:33:36 | ncoghlan | set | messageid: <1291685616.74.0.481856534709.issue10626@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2010-12-07 01:33:34 | ncoghlan | link | issue10626 messages |
2010-12-07 01:33:34 | ncoghlan | create | |
|