> I noticed something by accident when trying your example script

That's due to the way I wrote the script (the use of __file__ to deduce the module name to preload), not anything inherent in the bug described here.

>  looking at the file you attached, did everything make it into the patch?

Yes.

> I ask because unless I'm missing something it looks like the patch adds arguments to the function signature but does not act upon them in any new way?

It does not. It's only fixing the signature of the method in the base class (which raises NotImplementedError) to match the signature of the method in the derived class (which is the only one actually called).