-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.8k
gh-99138: Isolate _zoneinfo #99218
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
gh-99138: Isolate _zoneinfo #99218
Conversation
erlend-aasland
commented
Nov 7, 2022
•
edited by bedevere-bot
Loading
edited by bedevere-bot
- Issue: Port zoneinfo module to use module state #99138
@pganssle I can break this up in several PRs; let me know what works best for you. |
@@ -701,28 +801,37 @@ zoneinfo_reduce(PyObject *obj_self, PyObject *unused) | |||
return rv; | |||
} | |||
|
|||
/*[clinic input] | |||
@classmethod |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we need the defining_class
converter for @classmethod
s?
🤖 New build scheduled with the buildbot fleet by @erlend-aasland for commit 573aec1 🤖 If you want to schedule another build, you need to add the ":hammer: test-with-buildbots" label again. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You've beat me to it :)
Thanks!
Sorry, I was not aware that you were working on a PR; I should've asked first. |
🤖 New build scheduled with the buildbot fleet by @erlend-aasland for commit 6e69e93 🤖 If you want to schedule another build, you need to add the ":hammer: test-with-buildbots" label again. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Thanks for the review, Kumar. I'll wait until Monday with landing this, to give @pganssle a chance to chime in. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One minor suggestion here, and it's mostly a documentation thing, otherwise this looks good to me!
Thanks for doing this Erland, sorry for the long delay in reviewing.
Hopefully the tests I put in place for the cache stuff are robust 😅 That kind of thing is hard to test well, and this is the kind of change that really needs it 😛
When you're done making the requested changes, leave the comment: |
Yeah, I know, changes like this need really good test suites! I'll take a look at the coverage before and after the change, just to see that we've at least got all the branches covered. Thanks for the review 🙂 |
Good to go, @pganssle? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me! Thanks again for doing this @erlend-aasland and thanks for doing the heavy lifting in the review @kumaraditya303
I don't think it needs to block this particular PR, but is the subinterpreter work advanced enough that we can add an actual test that the module isolation worked yet? I'm guessing the answer is no because we need to import |
Subinterpreter testing is not optimal yet. There's some machinery in
Correct, |
Thanks again for the reviews, Kumar and Paul; highly appreciated. |