Repository navigation
Update test_unicodedata to 3.15 - #8598
Conversation
|
Important Review skippedReview was skipped due to path filters ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
CodeRabbit blocks several paths by default. You can override this behavior by explicitly including those paths in the path filters. For example, including ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
📦 Library DependenciesThe following Lib/ modules were modified. Here are their dependencies: [x] lib: cpython/Lib/copy.py dependencies:
dependent tests: (322 tests)
[ ] lib: cpython/Lib/string dependencies:
dependent tests: (75 tests)
[x] lib: cpython/Lib/weakref.py dependencies:
dependent tests: (223 tests)
[x] lib: cpython/Lib/inspect.py dependencies:
dependent tests: (96 tests)
[ ] lib: cpython/Lib/compression dependencies:
dependent tests: (101 tests)
[x] lib: cpython/Lib/py_compile.py dependencies:
dependent tests: (44 tests)
[ ] lib: cpython/Lib/socket.py dependencies:
dependent tests: (101 tests)
[ ] test: cpython/Lib/test/test_unicodedata.py (TODO: 28) dependencies: dependent tests: (no tests depend on unicode) [x] lib: cpython/Lib/pickle.py dependencies:
dependent tests: (103 tests)
[x] lib: cpython/Lib/os.py dependencies:
dependent tests: (188 tests)
[x] lib: cpython/Lib/ast.py dependencies:
dependent tests: (149 tests)
Legend:
|
| class BaseUnicodeFunctionsTest: | ||
|
|
||
| @unittest.expectedFailure # TODO: RUSTPYTHON; AttributeError: module 'unicodedata' has no attribute 'digit' | ||
| @unittest.skip # TODO: RUSTPYTHON; AssertionError: '7bda75e48a961a01ab328358980cefc5c0a1666d' != '68cd01e2c680b851c1fcab012efb5635' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is there a reason why it was changed to "skip"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, it passes for modern Unicode (yay) but fails for 3.2.0 (boo). It should pass for both once we figure out the remaining 3.2.0 discrepancies.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh, I see. don't we have a way to expose the current unicode version and have an expectedFailureIf with that? if not, then this is good to merge
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ShaharNaveh that sounds too much, at least not that much worth for one time solution
See: #8548
One of checkbox below must be checked.
Summary