-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.9k
gh-92546: Fix invalid call in pprint executed as a script #92560
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions
2
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Library/2022-05-09-17-31-30.gh-issue-92546.1hbeQQ.rst
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ | ||
Fix invalid :meth:`PrettyPrinter._safe_repr` call when :mod:`pprint` is | ||
executed as a script. |
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank for reporting. We typically commit a bugfix together with a unit test that will prevent the bug reoccurring. I'm not sure though whether _perfcheck is a feature that needs to be fixed (is it user facing?) or dead code that needs to be removed or a test that needs to move to the test module.
Any idea what it's for?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It isn't user facing and it isn't dead. We sometime have code the is just for us in a main section. For example, the random module also has some performance measurement code and example distributions — we use that sometimes while maintaining the module.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If it’s useful then it needs a test.
(And it would probably be even more useful as a pyperformance benchmark, where it would be tracked on a regular basis.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd write a sanity test which verifies that
$ python -m pprint
works. More unit tests could then be added in the future if needed, but a simple sanity test is enough for now.From what I can tell, that is what didn't work for @ArturKhuziakhmetov when they opened #92546, and it makes sense to test. It is surely user-facing, and should work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Update: I just noticed I missed some of @rhettinger's comments. Since this is undocumented functionality, refraining from testing it may make sense. However, seeing broken code shipped in production builds raises a red flag for me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But the production code is really the functions that people import from the pprint module, not the unofficial script functionality.