This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author p-ganssle
Recipients belopolsky, p-ganssle
Date 2017-12-21.21:54:13
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
In writing some tests for the alternate date constructors as part of my PR for issue 32403 (, I noticed that for `datetime`, the `fromtimestamp` bypasses the `__new__` call on the subclass:

    from datetime import datetime

    args = (2003, 4, 14)
    ts = 1050292800.0           # Equivalent timestamp
    d_ord = 731319              # Equivalent ordinal date

    class DatetimeSubclass(datetime):
        def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
            result = datetime.__new__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
            result.extra = 7
            return result

    base_d = DatetimeSubclass(*args)
    assert isinstance(base_d, DatetimeSubclass)         # Passes
    assert base_d.extra == 7                            # Passes

    ord_d = DatetimeSubclass.fromordinal(d_ord)
    assert isinstance(ord_d, DatetimeSubclass)          # Passes
    assert ord_d.extra == 7                             # Passes

    ts_d = DatetimeSubclass.fromtimestamp(ts)
    assert isinstance(ts_d, DatetimeSubclass)           # Passes
    assert ts_d.extra == 7                              # Fails

Replacing `datetime` with `date` in the above code we don't get a failure, but with `datetime`, it fails with:

    AttributeError: 'DatetimeSubclass' object has no attribute 'extra'

Regardless of the status of 32403, I think this should be fixed (though I can try to fix them both at the same time).
Date User Action Args
2017-12-21 21:54:13p-gansslesetrecipients: + p-ganssle, belopolsky
2017-12-21 21:54:13p-gansslesetmessageid: <>
2017-12-21 21:54:13p-gansslelinkissue32404 messages
2017-12-21 21:54:13p-gansslecreate