Message162190
Thanks. It looks like the issue with the latest patch is caused by side effects of calling importlib.import_module().
Working from the patch, I got it to the point where inserting the following four lines somewhere in the code--
try:
importlib.import_module('foo__doesnotexist')
except:
pass
caused the exception raised by the following line--
module = importlib.import_module('package_foo2.subpackage.no_exist')
to change from this--
...
File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 1250, in _find_and_load_unlocked
ImportError: No module named 'package_foo2.subpackage.no_exist'
to this--
...
File "..../Lib/importlib/_bootstrap.py", line 1257, in _find_and_load_unlocked
raise ImportError(_ERR_MSG.format(name), name=name)
ImportError: No module named 'package_foo2'
It looks like this issue is cropping up in the tests because the test code dynamically adds packages to directories that importlib may already have examined.
In the reduced test case I was creating to examine the issue, I found that inserting a call to importlib.invalidate_caches() at an appropriate location resolved the issue.
Should loadTestsFromName() call importlib.invalidate_caches() in the new patch implementation, or should the test code be aware of that aspect of loadTestsFromName()'s behavior and be adjusted accordingly (e.g. by creating the dynamically-added packages in more isolated directories)? For backwards compatibility reasons, how does loadTestsFromName() currently behave in this regard (i.e. does importlib.import_module() behave the same as __import__ with respect to caching)? |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2012-06-03 03:23:50 | chris.jerdonek | set | recipients:
+ chris.jerdonek, rbcollins, r.david.murray, michael.foord, slmnhq, alexgarel |
2012-06-03 03:23:50 | chris.jerdonek | set | messageid: <1338693830.59.0.904925627498.issue7559@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2012-06-03 03:23:50 | chris.jerdonek | link | issue7559 messages |
2012-06-03 03:23:48 | chris.jerdonek | create | |
|