[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

Changes by Serhiy Storchaka : -- resolution: -> fixed stage: commit review -> resolved status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___

[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset 138c2afd9f1f by Serhiy Storchaka in branch '3.4': Issue #19681: Test the repr of partial with more than one keyword argument. https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/138c2afd9f1f New changeset 6f80e8bcb5ad by Serhiy Storchaka in branch 'default': Issue #1

[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

Berker Peksag added the comment: issue19681_2.patch LGTM. -- nosy: +berker.peksag stage: patch review -> commit review versions: +Python 3.5 ___ Python tracker ___ __

[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: Ping. -- keywords: +needs review stage: needs patch -> patch review ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Pyt

[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

Mark Lawrence added the comment: The latest patch looks okay to my eye, can somebody do a formal commit review please. -- nosy: +BreamoreBoy ___ Python tracker ___ _

[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: If you don't like permutation() (which already imported in this file), here is a patch which uses explicit hardcoded permutations. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file33062/issue19681_2.patch ___ Python track

[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

Christian Heimes added the comment: It still needs a proper fix, though. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list U

[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: What is the status of this issue? -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsu

[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset 18a44d65d34a by Christian Heimes in branch 'default': Issue #19681: Apply a quick and minimal band-aid. http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/18a44d65d34a -- nosy: +python-dev ___ Python tracker

[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

Christian Heimes added the comment: Both keys happen to have the same LSB bytes. I have added "print(hash('a') & 7, hash('b') & 7)" to the code and run test tests multiple times: $ ./python -m test -m test_repr test_functools [1/1] test_functools 3 6 3 6 1 test OK. $ ./python -m test -m test_re

[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

STINNER Victor added the comment: Ok, here is a different patch sorting keywords. So it still checks how the C code joins keyword parameters. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file32766/test_functools_repr2.patch ___ Python tracker

[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

Nick Coghlan added the comment: And actually re-reading the existing code to see it already works that way... how can two dicts with the same keys, without any extra keys being added and deleted in either have different iteration orders? If it's just a matter of copying the original dict changing

[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

Nick Coghlan added the comment: I'm pretty sure the second keyword is there to ensure the repr includes the appropriate commas. Can we just make a suitable dict and check the key order? -- ___ Python tracker __

[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

Christian Heimes added the comment: I'm for Victors patch. Let's not get too fancy with tests. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bu

[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

STINNER Victor added the comment: permutation() looks overkill to me for such trivial test. Here is a simpler approach: remove the second keyword :-) test_functools_repr.patch -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file32765/test_functools_repr.patch ___

[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

STINNER Victor added the comment: See issue #19664 for userdict. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscri

[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

Christian Heimes added the comment: The repr test of userdict fails sometimes, too. http://buildbot.python.org/all/builders/AMD64%20Ubuntu%20LTS%203.x/builds/3120/steps/test/logs/stdio == FAIL: test_all (test.test_userdict.User

[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

New submission from Christian Heimes: test_repr of test.test_functools.TestPartialC fails sometimes because the test scenario depends on the order of items in a Python dict. The order is not stable and may change. Before PEP 456 was committed the order of items was stable most of the time. Now

[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

Christian Heimes added the comment: The issue is causing flaky build bots and should be resolved soonish. I don't know what's the best way to fix the problem. Either the test needs to change or partial_repr() must print the keys in sorted order. -- nosy: +haypo, ncoghlan, rhettinger pr

[issue19681] test_repr (test.test_functools.TestPartialC) failures

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: Here is a patch for test_functools. -- keywords: +patch nosy: +serhiy.storchaka Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file32758/issue19681.patch ___ Python tracker _