RetroSearch Browse

Fri Mar 9 23:27:45 CET 2012 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117476.html

On 09/03/2012 22:32, Jim Jewett wrote:
> I do not believe the change set below is valid.
>
> As I read it, the new test verifies that one particular type of Nasty
> key will provoke a RuntimeError -- but that particular type already
> did so, by hitting the recursion limit.  (It doesn't even really
> mutate the dict.)

Oh yes, thanks for the report. I fixed that test.

> Meanwhile, the patch throws out tests for several different types of
> mutations that have caused problems -- even segfaults -- in the past,
> even after the dict implementation code was already "fixed".
>
> Changing these tests to "assertRaises" would be fine, but they should
> all be kept; if nothing else, they test whether you've caught all
> mutation avenues.

I ran all these tests, none is still crashing. I don't think that it is 
interesting to keep them.

Victor

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-March/117476.html below:

[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython: Close #14205: dict lookup raises a RuntimeError if the dict is modified during