-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33.2k
gh-126019 Fix inspect.getsource for classes created in PyREPL #126032
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
Open
devdanzin
wants to merge
11
commits into
python:main
Choose a base branch
from
devdanzin:fix_repl_inspect_getsource
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
9b1369e
Fix inspect.getsource for classes created in PyREPL.
devdanzin 5eafc69
Fix test_inspect_getsource.
devdanzin cc16cac
Add test_class_defined_in_pyrepl to test_inspect.TestBuggyCases.
devdanzin c76fb0e
📜🤖 Added by blurb_it.
blurb-it[bot] b3b9cb6
Merge branch 'main' into fix_repl_inspect_getsource
devdanzin 46b88d6
Undo changes to inspect.
devdanzin e3e82b3
Remove __file__ attribute from __main__ when PyREPL starts.
devdanzin cc19746
Fix test_inspect_keeps_globals_from_inspected_module.
devdanzin 73d66c1
Update NEWS entry for PR.
devdanzin 2c09d05
Fix NEWS entry for PR.
devdanzin 7448a6f
Remove outdated comment.
devdanzin File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -1318,6 +1318,12 @@ def test_null_byte(self): | |
| self.assertEqual(exit_code, 0) | ||
| self.assertNotIn("TypeError", output) | ||
|
|
||
| def test_inspect_getsource(self): | ||
| code = "import inspect\nclass A: pass\n\nprint(inspect.getsource(A))\nexit()\n" | ||
| output, exit_code = self.run_repl(code) | ||
| self.assertEqual(exit_code, 0) | ||
| self.assertIn("OSError('source code not available')", output) | ||
|
Comment on lines
+1314
to
+1318
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 think that testing whether |
||
|
|
||
| def test_readline_history_file(self): | ||
| # skip, if readline module is not available | ||
| readline = import_module('readline') | ||
|
|
||
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions
1
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Library/2024-10-27-11-46-13.gh-issue-126019.I_GHhZ.rst
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | ||
| Fix :func:`inspect.getsource` to avoid fetching unrelated source code for classes defined in PyREPL. |
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Hmm, I'm worried about this being a breaking change.
__module__now has more precedent over__file__--maybe people could have been relying on that?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.
Yeah I share similar concerns. Also why this only affects pyREPL and not any other main module ?
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 think because for other
__main__modules,__main__.__file__points to the correct source code.In basic REPL,
sys.modules["__main__"]doesn't have a__file__attribute, so it raisesOSError('source code not available')when inspected.But with PyREPL,
sys.modules["__main__"].__file__is_pyrepl.__main__, which is where the source code is being pulled from. So we could instead skip loading from__file__if we detect PyREPL is in use, what do you think?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.
Wait, we could just delete
__file__from__main__, right?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.
That fixes the problem no?
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.
Yeah, I think that would be much less invasive.