Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Moving tp_class access, and consistent fully-qualified naming for PyPy, to detail::get_tp_name - #2520
Conversation
110b168 to
b4dc8e3Compare…y, to detail::get_tp_name
b4dc8e3 to
587ba52Compare| @pytest.mark.xfail("env.PYPY") | ||
| @pytest.mark.xfail("env.PYPY and sys.pypy_version_info < (7, 3, 2)") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Expect this to fail on PyPy < 7.3.2"
Didn't we decide to drop older versions already?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
7.3.2 is not out, yet. And it still fails on 7.3.1 :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If 7.3.2 is out before this gets merged, yes, let's remove it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(unrelated change, btw, but something I bumped into, when testing locally)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I probably wouldn't drop it right away; approximately supporting 7.3.0+ would probably be ideal.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, that's probably best.
| #endif | ||
| inline std::string get_tp_name(PyTypeObject *type) { | ||
| #if !defined(PYPY_VERSION) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What happens in 7.3.2? Does the line below start working?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think so, no. I believe the @pytest.mark.xfail("env.PYPY and sys.pypy_version_info < (7, 3, 2)") is unrelated (but I just came across it because I tested with 7.3.2.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ugh .. I'd written this yesterday, but it was still a "pending review" ...
rwgk
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks like a great step in the right direction.
Are there existing unit tests for built-in types and nested classes? (If not it would be OK with me to add them later.)
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
YannickJadoul
commented
Sep 28, 2020
I think so, yes. Do the tests that I had to change (because PyPy is now consistent with CPython) count? |
rwgk
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks Yannick! I think this is good to merge, to help you finishing up #2349. I didn't have a chance to look into existing unit test coverage beyond the changes in test_class.py here, but we can look into that separately, later, or as the need arises.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
3756f01 to
a22f2d7CompareYannickJadoul
commented
Sep 28, 2020
OK, sounds good to me. Thanks, @rwgk! |
henryiii
commented
Oct 2, 2020
This seems safe to put in; would like to slowly keep a little momentum heading into 2.6.0. |
Increasing consistency, cfr. #2349 (comment)