Skip to content

gh-82378: fix sys.tracebacklimit in pyrepl #122452

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

Closed

Conversation

cfbolz
Copy link
Contributor

@cfbolz cfbolz commented Jul 30, 2024

make sure that pyrepl uses the same logic for sys.tracebacklimit as both the basic repl and the standard sys.excepthook. as discussed on #82378, sys.tracebacklimit has two different meanings, and this pr makes sure that it's consistent in the two repls.

make sure that pyrepl uses the same logic for sys.tracebacklimit as both
the basic repl and the standard sys.excepthook
@cfbolz
Copy link
Contributor Author

cfbolz commented Jul 31, 2024

@serhiy-storchaka would you maybe have time to look at this one as well? it's vaguely related to the excepthook PR: also a cornercase behaviour-change in pyrepl compared to the classic repl.

@serhiy-storchaka serhiy-storchaka self-requested a review July 31, 2024 14:28
@serhiy-storchaka
Copy link
Member

I first want to merge #122528. It performs refactoring, so it will conflict with this PR, but at the end it can make it simpler.

I wonder how it affects this issue.

@cfbolz
Copy link
Contributor Author

cfbolz commented Jul 31, 2024

I first want to merge #122528. It performs refactoring, so it will conflict with this PR, but at the end it can make it simpler.

I wonder how it affects this issue.

Thanks for the heads up, makes sense! I'm happy to rebase this pr once you're done.

@serhiy-storchaka
Copy link
Member

Please rebase.

@cfbolz
Copy link
Contributor Author

cfbolz commented Aug 9, 2024

@serhiy-storchaka I'm traveling for a bit, sorry, will do it end next week.

@cfbolz
Copy link
Contributor Author

cfbolz commented Aug 16, 2024

@serhiy-storchaka I've merged main into the PR. you could look again.

I've also opened a variant of this PR, #123062 , with a more radical change. please pick whichever is more appropriate, I'm fine with either outcome.

@serhiy-storchaka
Copy link
Member

#123062 looks better in long run. I propose to modify it (it can be considered a third variant).

@cfbolz
Copy link
Contributor Author

cfbolz commented Aug 16, 2024

I'm closing this PR, #123062 looks much better now.

@cfbolz cfbolz closed this Aug 16, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants