Skip to content

[3.7] bpo-11874: fix assertion failure in argparse metavar handling (GH-1826) #7527

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
Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

[3.7] bpo-11874: fix assertion failure in argparse metavar handling (GH-1826) #7527

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

@miss-islington miss-islington commented Jun 8, 2018 •
edited by bedevere-bot
Loading

  • bugfix and test for fragile metavar handling in argparse (see
    bpo-24089, bpo-14046, bpo-25058, bpo-11874)
  • also fixes some incorrect tests that did not make 1-element tuples correctly
    (cherry picked from commit 66f02aa)

Co-authored-by: wim glenn wim.glenn@gmail.com

https://bugs.python.org/issue11874

@wimglenn @miss-islington
bpo-11874: fix assertion failure in argparse metavar handling (python…
4d52f68 
…GH-1826)

- bugfix and test for fragile metavar handling in argparse (see
  bpo-24089, bpo-14046, bpo-25058, bpo-11874)
- also fixes some incorrect tests that did not make 1-element tuples correctly
(cherry picked from commit 66f02aa)

Co-authored-by: wim glenn <wim.glenn@gmail.com>
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot mentioned this pull request Jun 8, 2018
Merged
@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor Author

@wimglenn and @ncoghlan: Backport status check is done, and it's a failure ❌ .

1 similar comment
@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor Author

@wimglenn and @ncoghlan: Backport status check is done, and it's a failure ❌ .

@ncoghlan ncoghlan closed this Jun 8, 2018
@miss-islington miss-islington deleted the backport-66f02aa-3.7 branch June 8, 2018 11:06
@ncoghlan
Copy link
Contributor

ncoghlan commented Jun 8, 2018

@Mariatta I'm not entirely clear what happened here... I think my closing the PR in order to restart the CI by reopening it may have confused miss-islington.

@ncoghlan
Copy link
Contributor

ncoghlan commented Jun 8, 2018

#7530 worked the way we'd expect it to work

@Mariatta
Copy link
Member

Mariatta commented Jun 8, 2018

@ncoghlan Yeah that's the tricky part. miss-islington will delete the branch after the PR has been closed, whether merged or not 😄 So re-creating the PR is the way to go, which you already did.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@ncoghlan ncoghlan ncoghlan approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
awaiting merge
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@miss-islington @ncoghlan @Mariatta @the-knights-who-say-ni @bedevere-bot @wimglenn