Test issue #47020
Comments
|
This is a very long line. I am wondering how it will be wrapped. What Here's an example: def fact(n):
if n > 1:
return n * fact(n-1)
else:
assert n in (0, 1)
return 1What do you think of that? |
|
Testing authorage |
|
Does this still work? |
|
More testing. |
|
Testing 1..2..3 |
|
Reviewers: , Description: Here's an example: def fact(n):
if n > 1:
return n * fact(n-1)
else:
assert n in (0, 1)
return 1What do you think of that?" Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/24075 Affected files: Index: static/upload.py +#python static/upload.py -R 2771 -F msg66272 --send_mail +def fetch(nodeid, debug=True): @@ -453,6 +476,14 @@
group.add_option("--send_mail", action="store_true",
dest="send_mail", default=False,
help="Send notification email to reviewers.")
+# Link options
+group = parser.add_option_group("Link options")
+group.add_option("-R", "--roundup", action="store", dest="roundup",
+ metavar="ROUNDUP", default=None,
+ help="Python tracker issue number to link with.")
+group.add_option("-F", "--fetch_descr", action="store", dest="fetch_descr",
+ metavar="FETCHDESCR", default=None,
+ help="Tracker file or message to fetch description from.")
def GetRpcServer(options):
@@ -1291,7 +1322,10 @@
prompt = "Message describing this patch set: "
else:
prompt = "New issue subject: "
- message = options.message or raw_input(prompt).strip()
+ if options.roundup:
+ message = fetch(options.roundup)
+ else:
+ message = options.message or raw_input(prompt).strip()
if not message:
ErrorExit("A non-empty message is required")
rpc_server = GetRpcServer(options)
@@ -1307,11 +1341,16 @@
if "@" in reviewer and not reviewer.split("@")[1].count(".") == 1:
ErrorExit("Invalid email address: %s" % reviewer)
form_fields.append(("reviewers", options.reviewers))
+ tracker_email = 'report@bugs.python.org,'
if options.cc:
for cc in options.cc.split(','):
if "@" in cc and not cc.split("@")[1].count(".") == 1:
ErrorExit("Invalid email address: %s" % cc)
- form_fields.append(("cc", options.cc))
+ if options.roundup:
+ cc = tracker_email + options.cc
+ form_fields.append(("cc", cc))
+ elif options.roundup:
+ form_fields.append(("cc", tracker_email[:-1]))
description = options.description
if options.description_file:
if options.description:
@@ -1319,6 +1358,9 @@
file = open(options.description_file, 'r')
description = file.read()
file.close()
+ elif options.fetch_descr:
+ # XXX Add error handling as above
+ description = fetch(options.fetch_descr)
if description:
form_fields.append(("description", description))
# Send a hash of all the base file so the server can determine if a copy |
|
Reviewers: , Description: "This is a very long line. I am wondering how it will be wrapped. What Here's an example: def fact(n):
if n > 1:
return n * fact(n-1)
else:
assert n in (0, 1)
return 1What do you think of that?" Description fetched from: http://bugs.python.org/msg66272 Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/25076 Affected files: |
|
Reviewers: , Description: Testing 1..2..3 Description fetched from: http://bugs.python.org/msg82496 Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/22062 Affected files: |
|
Testing how email handles quotes. [mailgw] # Keep email citations when accepting messages.
# Setting this to "no" strips out "quoted" text from the message.
# Signatures are also stripped.
# Allowed values: yes, no
# Default: yes
keep_quoted_text = yes
# Preserve the email body as is - that is,
# keep the citations _and_ signatures.
# Allowed values: yes, no
# Default: no
leave_body_unchanged = no |
|
Dumb whole message quote. On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Daniel Diniz <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
|
|
Nested quotes. On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Daniel Diniz <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
|
Bottom posting, less hints about quotes. |
But you acknowledge they are really the same method attached to Moreover, you say you want them to compare unequal because you
"Trust" is a strong word. You can trust the comparison operator if you Really, this is the same as with numbers: 'b' There are probably use cases where the above is annoying. But,
I disagree. The general use case of keeping a bunch of callables with
I don't think there are lots of use cases for comparing *unbound* (*)
Python 3.0b2+ (py3k, Jul 29 2008, 20:37:34)
[GCC 4.3.1 20080626 (prerelease)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> class A:
... def f(): pass
...
>>> type(A.f)
<class 'function'>
>>> a = A()
>>> type(a.f)
<class 'method'>
>>> def g(): pass
...
>>> class B:
... g = g
...
>>> B.g is g
True |
"Trust" is a strong word. You can trust the comparison operator if you Really, this is the same as with numbers: 'b' |
Unquote code snippet: 'b' |
|
Attach some file |
|
testing autonosy for release managers with release blockers |
|
Works fine. Now release managers will be added automatically to the nosy list when the priority of an issue is set to 'release blocker'. |
ezio-melotti
added
release-blocker
deferred-blocker
and removed
release-blocker
deferred-blocker
labels
zwtestuser
mannequin
added
type-bug
|
test comment |
|
test IRC bot |
|
Close (test IRC bot). Test is successful! "09:18 < irker301> vstinner bpo-2771/Test issue: [open] test IRC bot https://bugs.python.org/issue2771" logged on #python-dev-infras |
|
Test IRC |
ezio-melotti
assigned python-dev
and ezio-melotti and unassigned ezio-melotti and python-dev
|
Testing GitHub mentions, please ignore: @serhiy-storchaka |
|
So long, and thanks for all the bugs. |
Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.
Show more details
GitHub fields:
bugs.python.org fields:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: