-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.6k
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-94808: Coverage: Test uppercase string literal prefixes #95925
gh-94808: Coverage: Test uppercase string literal prefixes #95925
Conversation
mdboom
commented
Aug 12, 2022
•
edited by bedevere-bot
Loading
edited by bedevere-bot
- Issue: Metabug: Improving C-level coverage #94808
Lib/test/test_string_literals.py
Outdated
self.assertEqual(eval(r""" R'\x01' """), '\\x01') | ||
self.assertEqual(eval(r""" BR'\x01' """), b'\\' + b'x01') | ||
self.assertEqual(eval(""" F'{1+1}' """), '2') | ||
self.assertEqual(eval(""" U'\U0001d120' """), '\U0001d120') |
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.
Presumably the lowercase versions are covered by other tests (right?)
Would it be simpler here to just assert in each case that the lowercase and upper case prefixes generate the same thing? For instance, self.assertEqual(eval(""" F'{1+1}' """), eval(""" f'{1+1}' """))
.
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's a good idea. Updated.
IIUC this is covering the uppercase cases here: http://droettboom.com/cpython-coverage/llvm-coverage/coverage/home/mdboom/Work/builds/cpython/Parser/string_parser.c.html#L183 |
Lib/test/test_string_literals.py
Outdated
self.assertEqual(eval(r""" R'\x01' """), r'\x01') | ||
self.assertEqual(eval(r""" BR'\x01' """), br'\x01') | ||
self.assertEqual(eval(""" F'{1+1}' """), f'{1+1}') | ||
self.assertEqual(eval(""" U'\U0001d120' """), u'\U0001d120') |
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.
Actually do we need the eval() calls?
Thanks @mdboom for the PR, and @serhiy-storchaka for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.11. |
GH-97518 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.11 branch. |
…honGH-95925) (cherry picked from commit f00383e) Co-authored-by: Michael Droettboom <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit f00383e) Co-authored-by: Michael Droettboom <[email protected]>
Thanks @mdboom for the PR, and @serhiy-storchaka for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.10. |
GH-97537 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.10 branch. |
…honGH-95925) (cherry picked from commit f00383e) Co-authored-by: Michael Droettboom <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit f00383e) Co-authored-by: Michael Droettboom <[email protected]>