Issue 12018: No tests for ntpath.samefile, ntpath.sameopenfile (original) (raw)

Created on 2011-05-06 15:12 by ronaldoussoren, last changed 2022-04-11 14:57 by admin. This issue is now closed.

Files
File name Uploaded Description Edit
test_samefile.patch santoso.wijaya,2011-05-12 18:04 Patch against 3.2 review
Messages (7)
msg135307 - (view) Author: Ronald Oussoren (ronaldoussoren) * (Python committer) Date: 2011-05-06 15:12
Python 3.2 introduced ntpath.samefile, but the implementation is not tested in test_ntpath.py. The same seems true of ntpath.sameopenfile. As noted in #10684 ntpath.samefile is broken on XP, which would have been caught by unittest. I've committed a fix for that particular bug, but haven't added unittests.
msg135846 - (view) Author: Santoso Wijaya (santoso.wijaya) * Date: 2011-05-12 18:04
Attaching a patch to test a use case for ntpath.samefile (looks like sameopenfile is already tested--or at least a use case of it).
msg179036 - (view) Author: Ronald Oussoren (ronaldoussoren) * (Python committer) Date: 2013-01-04 16:04
There are tests for samefile and sameopenfile in test_genericpath.GenericTest which is included by test_ntpath (NtCommonTest subclasses test_genericpath.CommonTest which again subclasses GenericTest). I cannot easily test on Windows (the only windows systems I've easy access to are production boxes using py2.7), but if my analysis is correct this issue can be closed
msg179037 - (view) Author: Brian Curtin (brian.curtin) * (Python committer) Date: 2013-01-04 16:09
That's true of the default branch due to some changes I recently made in the implementation of the functions, but we should probably put tests into 3.2/3.3.
msg222105 - (view) Author: Mark Lawrence (BreamoreBoy) * Date: 2014-07-02 13:54
Presumably the changes made in the default branch referred to in will have automatically been carried forward to 3.4 and 3.5.
msg243178 - (view) Author: Francis MB (francismb) * Date: 2015-05-14 11:47
Can this issue be closed? IMHO it's not clear what still needs to be done. The patch seems to be there already. Thanks in advance!
msg243185 - (view) Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) * (Python committer) Date: 2015-05-14 12:22
Given that several comments say "this should be done", and your analysis indicates it is done, I think it should be safe to close it :) Thanks for the nudge.
History
Date User Action Args
2022-04-11 14:57:17 admin set github: 56227
2015-05-14 12:22:37 r.david.murray set status: open -> closednosy: + r.david.murraymessages: + resolution: fixedstage: test needed -> resolved
2015-05-14 11:47:20 francismb set nosy: + francismbmessages: +
2014-07-02 13:54:59 BreamoreBoy set nosy: + BreamoreBoymessages: + versions: + Python 3.4, Python 3.5, - Python 3.2, Python 3.3
2013-01-04 16:09:01 brian.curtin set messages: +
2013-01-04 16:04:54 ronaldoussoren set messages: +
2013-01-04 15:46:04 serhiy.storchaka set components: + Tests, - Library (Lib)
2011-05-16 19:24:33 sijinjoseph set nosy: - sijinjoseph
2011-05-12 18:04:41 santoso.wijaya set files: + test_samefile.patchcomponents: + Library (Lib)versions: - Python 3.4keywords: + patchnosy: + santoso.wijayamessages: +
2011-05-11 11:39:29 sijinjoseph set nosy: + sijinjoseph
2011-05-06 15:13:45 brian.curtin set nosy: + brian.curtin
2011-05-06 15:12:50 ronaldoussoren create