Skip to content

[3.8] bpo-36871: Handle spec errors in assert_has_calls (GH-16005) #16364

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 25, 2019

Conversation

miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

@miss-islington miss-islington commented Sep 24, 2019

The fix in PR 13261 handled the underlying issue about the spec for specific methods not being applied correctly, but it didn't fix the issue that was causing the misleading error message.

The code currently grabs a list of responses from _call_matcher (which may include exceptions). But it doesn't reach inside the list when checking if the result is an exception. This results in a misleading error message when one of the provided calls does not match the spec.

https://bugs.python.org/issue36871

Automerge-Triggered-By: @gpshead
(cherry picked from commit b5a7a4f)

Co-authored-by: Samuel Freilich sfreilich@google.com

https://bugs.python.org/issue36871

Automerge-Triggered-By: @gpshead

The fix in PR 13261 handled the underlying issue about the spec for specific methods not being applied correctly, but it didn't fix the issue that was causing the misleading error message.

The code currently grabs a list of responses from _call_matcher (which may include exceptions). But it doesn't reach inside the list when checking if the result is an exception. This results in a misleading error message when one of the provided calls does not match the spec.

https://bugs.python.org/issue36871

Automerge-Triggered-By: @gpshead
(cherry picked from commit b5a7a4f)

Co-authored-by: Samuel Freilich <sfreilich@google.com>
@gpshead
Copy link
Member

gpshead commented Sep 24, 2019

I need to manually add the PR #16361 fix in this PR.

@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor Author

@sfreilich: Status check is done, and it's a success ✅ .

2 similar comments
@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor Author

@sfreilich: Status check is done, and it's a success ✅ .

@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor Author

@sfreilich: Status check is done, and it's a success ✅ .

@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor Author

@miss-islington: Status check is done, and it's a success ✅ .

@miss-islington miss-islington merged commit 1a17a05 into python:3.8 Sep 25, 2019
@miss-islington miss-islington deleted the backport-b5a7a4f-3.8 branch September 25, 2019 00:29
gpshead pushed a commit to gpshead/cpython that referenced this pull request Sep 25, 2019
…) (pythonGH-16364)

The fix in PR 13261 handled the underlying issue about the spec for specific methods not being applied correctly, but it didn't fix the issue that was causing the misleading error message.

The code currently grabs a list of responses from _call_matcher (which may include exceptions). But it doesn't reach inside the list when checking if the result is an exception. This results in a misleading error message when one of the provided calls does not match the spec.

https://bugs.python.org/issue36871

Co-authored-by: Samuel Freilich <sfreilich@google.com>

(cherry picked from commit 1a17a05)
gpshead added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 25, 2019
…H-16374)

Handle spec errors in assert_has_calls (GH-16005) (GH-16364)

The fix in PR 13261 handled the underlying issue about the spec for specific methods not being applied correctly, but it didn't fix the issue that was causing the misleading error message.

The code currently grabs a list of responses from _call_matcher (which may include exceptions). But it doesn't reach inside the list when checking if the result is an exception. This results in a misleading error message when one of the provided calls does not match the spec.

https://bugs.python.org/issue36871

Co-authored-by: Samuel Freilich <sfreilich@google.com>

(cherry picked from commit 1a17a05)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants