[Python-Dev] Unittest/doctest formatting differences in 2.7a1?

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Sat Dec 12 01:34:47 CET 2009

Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 21:24, Benjamin Peterson <benjamin at python.org> wrote:
>> 2009/12/10 Lennart Regebro <regebro at gmail.com>:
>>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 20:25, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
>>>> Since the intent of IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL is to make doctests immune to
>>>> implementation version specific changes, it seems to me that extending its
>>>> technical meaning is required to carry out its intent.
>>> Would this be considered bugfixy enough to get into 3.1-branch as well
>>> as 2.7? It really is damn annoying when you try to port doctests to
>>> Python 3, and it would be great if we wouldn't have to wait for 3.2.
>> I think a patch would be helpful before deciding that.
> Should I start a bug report in the tracker for this?


> The diff in the code is:
>                  # Another chance if they didn't care about the detail.
>                  elif self.optionflags & IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL:
> -                    m1 = re.match(r'[^:]*:', example.exc_msg)
> -                    m2 = re.match(r'[^:]*:', exc_msg)
> -                    if m1 and m2 and check(m1.group(0), m2.group(0),
> +                    m1 = re.match(r'(?:[^:]*\.)?([^:]*:)', example.exc_msg)
> +                    m2 = re.match(r'(?:[^:]*\.)?([^:]*:)', exc_msg)
> +                    if m1 and m2 and check(m1.group(1), m2.group(1),
>                                             self.optionflags):
>                          outcome = SUCCESS
> But obviously I have patches for both py3k and trunk with tests and
> updated documentation as well.
> As you see the diff is pretty simple, it's just a more complex regex.

Looks reasonable to me, although any backport to existing branches will
be Benjamin's call for 3.1 and Barry's for 2.6 (as the respective
release managers).


Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list