[issue43094] sqlite3.create_function takes parameter named narg, not num_params
New submission from Nicholas Chammas <nicholas.chammas@gmail.com>: The doc for sqlite3.create_function shows the signature as follows: https://docs.python.org/3.9/library/sqlite3.html#sqlite3.Connection.create_f... ``` create_function(name, num_params, func, *, deterministic=False) ``` But it appears that the parameter name is `narg`, not `num_params`. Trying `num_params` yields: ``` TypeError: function missing required argument 'narg' (pos 2) ``` ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 386100 nosy: docs@python, nchammas priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: sqlite3.create_function takes parameter named narg, not num_params versions: Python 3.9 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue43094> _______________________________________
Erlend Egeberg Aasland <erlend.aasland@innova.no> added the comment: There's also a discrepancy between the docs and the signature for create_aggregate(): https://docs.python.org/3.9/library/sqlite3.html#sqlite3.Connection.create_a... create_aggregate(name, num_params, aggregate_class) The second parameter is named n_arg, here with an underscore. I'm not sure what's the best fix; fixing the docs or the signatures. If we fix the signatures, we'll at least get a kind of consistency. ---------- nosy: +berker.peksag, erlendaasland _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue43094> _______________________________________
Change by Erlend Egeberg Aasland <erlend.aasland@innova.no>: ---------- versions: +Python 3.10 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue43094> _______________________________________
Change by Erlend Egeberg Aasland <erlend.aasland@innova.no>: ---------- nosy: +serhiy.storchaka _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue43094> _______________________________________
Erlend Egeberg Aasland <erlend.aasland@innova.no> added the comment: Quoting from Victor Stinner's reply on python-dev (https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/X6SZIVOZ...): If there are applications relying on the parameter name, it's better to trust the Python implementation, rather than the documentation. It would be better to make these parameters positional only in the first place, but now it's too late for such backward incompatible change :-( ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue43094> _______________________________________
Change by Erlend Egeberg Aasland <erlend.aasland@innova.no>: ---------- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +23280 stage: -> patch review pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/24489 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue43094> _______________________________________
Erlend Egeberg Aasland <erlend.aasland@innova.no> added the comment: Module level function discrepancies: register_converter(), register_adapter(), and enable_callback_tracebacks() docstrings were unintentionally altered in recent AC updates. Docstrings should be restored. Docs are ok. adapt() is not documented, but docstrings were unintentionally altered in recent AC updates. Docstrings should be restored. connect() and enable_shared_cache() (latter is undocumented) are ok. complete_statement() docs should be updated to reflect implementation. ---------- title: sqlite3.create_function takes parameter named narg, not num_params -> Update sqlite3 docs and docstrings to reflect implementation _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue43094> _______________________________________
Erlend Egeberg Aasland <erlend.aasland@innova.no> added the comment: sqlite3.Connection.set_progress_handler() docs: set_progress_handler(handler, n) impl: set_progress_handler(progress_handler, n) Apart from that, the rest of sqlite3.Connection seems to be ok. There's an ongoing discussion at python-dev about how to resolve this issue. I'm in favour of normalising the create_*() methods to be positional only (like create_collation() is now). sqlite3.Cursor and sqlite3.Row methods seems to be ok as well. ---------- title: Update sqlite3 docs and docstrings to reflect implementation -> sqlite3 signature discrepancies between documentation and implementation _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue43094> _______________________________________
Berker Peksag <berker.peksag@gmail.com> added the comment: The problem is that sqlite3 isn't the only module where there are discrepancies between documentation and implementation. If we are going to change public sqlite3 APIs in to be positional-only, I'd prefer writing a PEP and fix all modules once and for all. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue43094> _______________________________________
Erlend Egeberg Aasland <erlend.aasland@innova.no> added the comment:
If we are going to change public sqlite3 APIs in to be positional-only, I'd prefer writing a PEP and fix all modules once and for all.
Right. I assume you mean that such a PEP would contain a set of guidelines for how to handle these dilemmas? It would be almost impossible to create a set of strict rules that can handle all cases, AFAICS. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue43094> _______________________________________
Erlend Egeberg Aasland <erlend.aasland@innova.no> added the comment:
I'd prefer writing a PEP and fix all modules once and for all.
Berker, I started drafting a PEP. Would you be interested in helping? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue43094> _______________________________________
Berker Peksag <berker.peksag@gmail.com> added the comment:
Berker, I started drafting a PEP. Would you be interested in helping?
Of course! I may be not be able to respond to you quickly in the next few weeks, though. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue43094> _______________________________________
Erlend Egeberg Aasland <erlend.aasland@innova.no> added the comment:
Of course! I may be not be able to respond to you quickly in the next few weeks, though.
Thank you! I'll send you a preliminary version sometime this week. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue43094> _______________________________________
participants (3)
-
Berker Peksag -
Erlend Egeberg Aasland
-
Nicholas Chammas