bpo-45756: Fix mock triggers dynamic lookup via the descriptor protocol. by hongweipeng · Pull Request #31348 · python/cpython (original) (raw)
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 andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Conversation6 Commits2 Checks0 Files changed
Conversation
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
[ Show hidden characters]({{ revealButtonHref }})
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Isn't it the same as #29901 ?
Isn't it the same as #29901 ?
I think this is a good example of using inspect.getmembers_static
.
Isn't it the same as #29901 ?
No, it only skip property
in #29901 .
This PR is similar to #22209 .
I check the difference between inspect.getmembers_static(obj)
and for k in dir(obj) ... inspect.getattr_static(obj, k)
.
I found that they behave differently when __dir__
is defined and the attribute is not exist.
class A:
def __dir__(self):
return ['__class__', 'no_member']
obj = A()
inspect.getmembers_static(obj) # ['__class__']
[(k, inspect.getattr_static(obj, k)) for k in dir(obj)] # AttributeError
I don't know which behavior is more reasonable.
for attr in dir(spec): |
---|
if iscoroutinefunction(getattr(spec, attr, None)): |
_spec_asyncs.append(attr) |
for attr, _ in inspect.getmembers_static(spec, iscoroutinefunction): |
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What about async classmethods? Would those still get recognized as coroutines?
f0k mentioned this pull request
Thanks for the PR! I think we should consolidate the discussion to #22209. If we do this, we should prefer continuing to use dir
and using getattr_static
(as done in #22209), rather than switching to getmembers_static
, because switching away from dir
causes extra avoidable backward-incompatibility.
Also, I think the async-classmethod case is not fixable using getmembers_static
, but is fixable via getattr_static
.
Closing as duplicate of #22209.