-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.9k
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
Conversation
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. @vstinner, thank you for fixing this. 🙇♀️
Thanks @vstinner for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.8, 3.9. |
@Carreau, thank you for catching this. |
GH-21840 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.9 branch. |
(cherry picked from commit 369a1cb) Co-authored-by: Victor Stinner <vstinner@python.org>
GH-21841 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.8 branch. |
(cherry picked from commit 369a1cb) Co-authored-by: Victor Stinner <vstinner@python.org>
Thanks for the review @csabella! |
with warnings.catch_warnings(): | ||
warnings.simplefilter("ignore") | ||
warnings.simplefilter("error", SyntaxWarning) |
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.
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 comment
The 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 ?
# 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 comment
The 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 comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Even w/o the \n
3.8.5 does not raise the SyntaxError.
$ cat foo.py
import warnings
from codeop import compile_command
warnings.simplefilter('error', SyntaxWarning)
res = compile_command('1 is 1', symbol='exec')
print('Res', res)
$ python foo.py
Res None
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.
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.
The title is misleading because before this patch, codeop was not ignoring the first SyntaxWarning. The test we added in bpo-40807 ensured that. The issue, rather, is that _maybe_compile requires 3 SyntaxErrors, not just 1, to raise a SyntaxError. As I note above, the fix to a regression introduces another regression. Fixed in #21848. |
https://bugs.python.org/issue41520