-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32.2k
bpo-41520: codeop no longer ignores SyntaxWarning #21838
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
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -84,9 +84,11 @@ def _maybe_compile(compiler, source, filename, symbol): | |
except SyntaxError: | ||
pass | ||
|
||
# Suppress warnings after the first compile to avoid duplication. | ||
# Catch syntax warnings after the first compile | ||
# to emit SyntaxWarning at most once. | ||
with warnings.catch_warnings(): | ||
warnings.simplefilter("ignore") | ||
warnings.simplefilter("error", SyntaxWarning) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ignoring all warnings was intentional. Compile also issues DeprecationWarnings. Narrowing the filter to SyntaxWarning only reintroduces the error of DeprecationWarning being issued thrice, which was fixed by the previous code. I will write more on the issue. Followup PR fixes regression by removing SyntaxWarning. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Then maybe the catch warnings need to be put in there 3 times, to reset the warning filter on each subsequent compilations ? |
||
|
||
try: | ||
code1 = compiler(source + "\n", filename, symbol) | ||
except SyntaxError as e: | ||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ | |
""" | ||
import sys | ||
import unittest | ||
import warnings | ||
from test import support | ||
from test.support import warnings_helper | ||
|
||
|
@@ -310,5 +311,11 @@ def test_warning(self): | |
compile_command("0 is 0") | ||
self.assertEqual(len(w.warnings), 1) | ||
|
||
# bpo-41520: check SyntaxWarning treated as an SyntaxError | ||
with self.assertRaises(SyntaxError): | ||
warnings.simplefilter('error', SyntaxWarning) | ||
compile_command('1 is 1\n', symbol='exec') | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This source should not have '\n' as single lines are passed without it. That is why to recompile with \n and \n\n added. Fixed in followup PR. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Even w/o the
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I expect that, but aside from your issue, the test if better if it calls compile_command the way it is intended to be used and is used by code.InteractiveInterpreter. |
||
|
||
|
||
if __name__ == "__main__": | ||
unittest.main() |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1 @@ | ||
Fix :mod:`codeop` regression: it no longer ignores :exc:`SyntaxWarning`. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.