[issue19412] Add a test.support decorator for tests that require C level docstrings

R. David Murray added the comment: Nick: I agree with your reasoning. I don't know why I said what I did on the other issue. -- ___ Python tracker ___ _

[issue19412] Add a test.support decorator for tests that require C level docstrings

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: I suppose that some tests (e.g. test_genexps.py) still fail with -O2. -- ___ Python tracker ___ __

[issue19412] Add a test.support decorator for tests that require C level docstrings

Nick Coghlan added the comment: On my Fedora system, test_gdb still fails when --without-doc-strings is configured, even after updating the decorator to cover both C and Python docstrings as an interim fix. That may be a real bug, though (see issue 19415 for details) Regarding splitting the f

[issue19412] Add a test.support decorator for tests that require C level docstrings

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset 1927b7c01c78 by Nick Coghlan in branch 'default': Mitigate #19412: restore test skips for --without-doc-strings http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/1927b7c01c78 -- nosy: +python-dev ___ Python tracker

[issue19412] Add a test.support decorator for tests that require C level docstrings

Nick Coghlan added the comment: I'll do an initial quick fix that also turns off HAVE_DOCSTRINGS when C level docstrings are missing, before working on a large patch to split it into two separate flags. -- assignee: -> ncoghlan ___ Python tracker

[issue19412] Add a test.support decorator for tests that require C level docstrings

Changes by Ezio Melotti : -- nosy: +ezio.melotti stage: -> needs patch type: -> enhancement ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-l

[issue19412] Add a test.support decorator for tests that require C level docstrings

Nick Coghlan added the comment: +1 for separate flags with appropriate names and skip messages. It should only be the usage in test_contextlib which needs to be migrated to the Python flags, although the C usage may be more widespread. (The other Python cases are currently checking the optimisat

[issue19412] Add a test.support decorator for tests that require C level docstrings

Stefan Krah added the comment: For reference see #17041 and msg180774. Separating the decorators makes things clearer (after all we're dealing with extremely obscure features here), merging them could mean less work. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue19412] Add a test.support decorator for tests that require C level docstrings

Stefan Krah added the comment: Yeah, HAVE_DOCSTRINGS was added when we were not sure whether to skip C and Python docstrings separately. I agree that the right thing is to have both requires_c_docstrings and requires_py_docstrings. -- ___ Python trac

[issue19412] Add a test.support decorator for tests that require C level docstrings

Tim Peters added the comment: Think this is related to why the FreeBSD default buildbot is always failing now? http://buildbot.python.org/all/builders/AMD64%20FreeBSD%209.0%203.x/builds/5619/steps/test/logs/stdio Like: File "/usr/home/buildbot/buildarea/3.x.krah-freebsd/build/Lib/test/test_ge

[issue19412] Add a test.support decorator for tests that require C level docstrings

Nick Coghlan added the comment: Alternatively, if the affected tests should also be skipped under -OO, then I think changing the current definition of HAVE_DOCSTRINGS would also work: MISSING_C_DOCSTRINGS = (check_impl_detail() and sys.platform != 'win32' and

[issue19412] Add a test.support decorator for tests that require C level docstrings

New submission from Nick Coghlan: It is *not* OK to have a "test.support.HAVE_DOCSTRINGS" flag that is true under -OO, nor a requires_docstrings decorator that still attempts to run the test under those conditions. Issue 19330 updated them so their meaning matched their names and the surround