Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

config.fromdictargs applies the dictionary after the config object construction instead of #1743

Open
RonnyPfannschmidt opened this issue Jul 20, 2016 · 6 comments
Open

config.fromdictargs applies the dictionary after the config object construction instead of #1743

RonnyPfannschmidt opened this issue Jul 20, 2016 · 6 comments
Labels
status: critical grave problem or usability issue that affects lots of users type: backward compatibility might present some backward compatibility issues which should be carefully noted in the changelog type: bug problem that needs to be addressed

Comments

@RonnyPfannschmidt
Copy link
Member

this results in inconsistent/strange behaviour wrt tmpdir, on more than 3 nodes
and inconsistent pluginmanager initialization
@RonnyPfannschmidt RonnyPfannschmidt added type: bug problem that needs to be addressed type: backward compatibility might present some backward compatibility issues which should be carefully noted in the changelog status: critical grave problem or usability issue that affects lots of users labels Jul 20, 2016
@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member

nicoddemus commented Jul 23, 2016 •
edited
Loading

I see what you mean @RonnyPfannschmidt. I guess it is a simple fix: get_config receives an optional options dict which is forwarded to the Config constructor.

Do you plan to work on this? Feels like a good change to go into 3.0.

@nicoddemus nicoddemus mentioned this issue Jul 23, 2016
Closed
@RonnyPfannschmidt
Copy link
Member Author

i took a initial look and this might turn bigger han expected to end with something thats correct instead of barely passing our tests

@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member

Hmm OK, bummer. But do you still intend to work on it?

@RonnyPfannschmidt
Copy link
Member Author

yes, but im not sure if it can make it into 3.0

i wonder if its ok to make it into 3.1

@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member

I think going into 3.1 is fine, no need for 4.0 I mean

@RonnyPfannschmidt
Copy link
Member Author

thats also my impression

@RonnyPfannschmidt RonnyPfannschmidt mentioned this issue Jul 19, 2018
Closed
@pytestbot pytestbot mentioned this issue Jul 31, 2018
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
status: critical grave problem or usability issue that affects lots of users type: backward compatibility might present some backward compatibility issues which should be carefully noted in the changelog type: bug problem that needs to be addressed
Projects
detangle the config object
Status: To do
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@RonnyPfannschmidt @nicoddemus