Python3 module updates - #64

LGTM. Great Job!

Oh, and in case my perspective in this code review comes across as weird and unfamiliar in some respects, it might be because I make a point of reviewing provenance (https://code.google.com/p/soc/wiki/ContributingCode#Provenance) as well as content and metadata. It's certainly what's behind my asking pull requests to be of "short" (only a few commits) branches, and recently branched off head-of-master.

Note how this pull request now stands at 18 commits, some of the later of which undo the changes done in earlier commits. That's the kind of mess that should get wiped away in a commit-squashing process prior to merge of a pull request.

Ok, thanks! I'm going through and cleaning up the commits now. Some of those commits that undo previous commits were put in after the initial PR was created, but they are getting cleaned up now.

We found a Contributor License Agreement for you (the sender of this pull request) and all commit authors, but as best as we can tell these commits were authored by someone else. If that's the case, please add them to this pull request and have them confirm that they're okay with these commits being contributed to Google. If we're mistaken and you did author these commits, just reply here to confirm.

CLAs look good, thanks!

Alright.... I think we're good now. I've taken out the extra commits and cut it down to 11 commits. I had some fun with the rebasing, but I think I figured it out.

It looks like there is another issue that needs to be addressed. I think when I was developing on my Windows computer last night, the permissions got changed on a number of files and I didn't notice. It added the execute bit, which causes nose to skip the tests. I verified that all of the tests still pass.

From the nose documentation:

It is important to note that the default behavior of nose is to not include tests from files which are executable. To include tests from such files, remove their executable bit or use the –exe flag (see ‘Options’ section below).

Let me know if you want me to fix the permissions on this PR or update the tox.ini in another PR.

Fix the permissions in this pull request, please. Files in source control should not have execute bits set accidentally; they should only have them set if it is the authorial intent of the project maintainers.

So it looks like @unittest.skip() and @unittest.skipif() were added in 2.7, so the 2 tests fail as is in 2.6 (see the travis logs). It looks like we can use the package unittest2.

unittest2 is a backport of the new features added to the unittest testing framework in Python 2.7 and onwards. It is tested to run on Python 2.6, 2.7, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and pypy.

I know that it isn't specific to Python3, but the skipif() was introduced in this PR. There are a few ways to handle this, but how would you like it done?

I think that what you've done in fde7488 looks like the right way to use unittest2 to handle 2.6 compatibility.

Looking forward: fbae355 and fde7488 shouldn't exist as they merely tweak work done earlier on the not-yet-merged-to-master line of development. I think you should simply amend those earlier commits to fix the issues in them.

Also on the matter of amending commits: please follow the guidelines at chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/#seven-rules. We should be able to look at https://github.com/google/google-api-python-client/pull/64/commits and not see any subject lines cut off and prematurely ending in ellipses.

This feels like it's getting close! :-)

I've learned a lot about rewriting history these past few days. :)

fbae355 has been incorporated to previous commits. (It was interesting splitting it up and squashing to previous commits)

fde7488 was needed for the 2 tests that were modified in 749477c, but I did it for all files for consistancy. In my mind they could be seen as atomic and in separate commits, but maybe in reverse order.

I'll modify the commit messages and move fde7488 until I hear otherwise.

We found a Contributor License Agreement for you (the sender of this pull request) and all commit authors, but as best as we can tell these commits were authored by someone else. If that's the case, please add them to this pull request and have them confirm that they're okay with these commits being contributed to Google. If we're mistaken and you did author these commits, just reply here to confirm.

Sounds like the right approach.

One more minor nitpick: "consistency", not "consistancy".

CLAs look good, thanks!

Alright... I think I got it all. I broke the history for a bit, but I think I got everything back in it's place.

At least I was spelling it "consistancy" with consistency... :-p

@nathanielmanistaatgoogle: Alright, I've made the last few changes, how does it look now?

Looks pretty good, but where is the separate pull request introducing unittest2? It may have been formed out of this but it should be merged and then this pull request should be rebased on top of it.

I created #66 to introduce unittest2. Once it gets merged, I'll rebase this branch to the merge commit.

Rebased this branch to 4e7e6d4.

Made it the whole way through, finally, so (at least in theory) I'm done asking questions about the change. :-)

I updated commit ca397a7 to just check the current version of python and run the appropriate check.

I think this is ready for merge.

@methane may I ask you to make another quick re-review since a few things have changed over the course of the conversation?

LGTM