antocuni@codespeak.net wrote:

Author: antocuni Date: Fri Jun 30 16:08:16 2006 New Revision: 29534

Modified: pypy/dist/pypy/rpython/ootypesystem/test/test_oorecord.py Log: Added a failing test.

Basically, if we modify the Record after its hash has already been computed, we might obtain two objects that compare equal but hash differently.

Disabling the caching in LowLevelType.__hash__ fix the test, but I think it's not what we want.

Adding the following __hash__ to ootype.Record also fix the test, but I'm not sure if it's correct, especially with recursive structures:

def __hash__(self): return hash(self._fields)

Records are really like lltypesystem Structs, although because some of their code was copied from Instance, they may give the impression that you can add fields after the fact, but that should not be done, it breaks the fact that they are supposed to compare by structure. If you are needing that you need some other approach or introduce some kind of forward definition. _add_fields should really disappear from Record.

Modified: pypy/dist/pypy/rpython/ootypesystem/test/test_oorecord.py ============================================================================== --- pypy/dist/pypy/rpython/ootypesystem/test/test_oorecord.py (original) +++ pypy/dist/pypy/rpython/ootypesystem/test/test_oorecord.py Fri Jun 30 16:08:16 2006 @@ -38,3 +38,14 @@ t.a = 1 t.b = 2 assert ooidentityhash(t) != ooidentityhash(t2) + +import py +def test_hash(): + #py.test.skip("LowLevelType.__hash__ bug waiting to be fixed") + T1 = Record({"item0": Signed, "item1": Signed}) + T2 = Record({"item0": Signed}) + + hash(T2) # compute the hash, it will stored in __cached_hash + T2._add_fields({"item1": Signed}) # modify the object + assert T1 == T2 + assert hash(T1) == hash(T2) _______________________________________________ pypy-svn mailing list pypy-svn@codespeak.net http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-svn