-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33.1k
gh-138669: Increase test coverage for difflib #138670
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-138669: Increase test coverage for difflib #138670
Conversation
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
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'd add a comment to avoid implying that users can rely on opcodes being the same object.
Otherwise, this looks great! Thank you!
Co-authored-by: Petr Viktorin <[email protected]>
Thanks @JanEricNitschke for the PR, and @encukou for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.14. |
Thanks @JanEricNitschke for the PR, and @encukou for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.13. |
(cherry picked from commit 4499161) Co-authored-by: Jan-Eric Nitschke <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 4499161) Co-authored-by: Jan-Eric Nitschke <[email protected]>
GH-138817 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.14 branch. |
GH-138818 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.13 branch. |
…8817) Co-authored-by: Jan-Eric Nitschke <[email protected]>
Previously:
Now:
I thought about also testing the "pat" argument for
IS_LINE_JUNK
, but decided against it because it is completely undocumented.Additionally i considered adding the raising tests to the doctests, but decided against that to keep them concise.