[Patches] [ python-Patches-1163731 ] small sanity checks for user-defined mros

[SourceForge.net]

Patches item #1163731, was opened at 2005-03-15 15:16
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by loewis
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1163731&group_id=5470

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Core (C code)
Group: None
>Status: Closed
>Resolution: Accepted
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Michael Hudson (mwh)
Assigned to: Anthony Baxter (anthonybaxter)
Summary: small sanity checks for user-defined mros

Initial Comment:
I the course of looking at bug 1153075 (which is a nastier problem) I 
found a couple of sillies: no checking was done that a user defined 
mro() function returns a sequence or that said sequence contains 
types or classes.  This patch fixes this, at least, and I'd like to get it 
into 2.4.1.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis)
Date: 2007-03-06 14:48

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=21627
Originator: NO

This was committed as r41845, as part of #1153075, AFAICT. mwh, if you
think there are still changes pending, please resubmit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Michael Hudson (mwh)
Date: 2005-03-17 10:29

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=6656

You have appreciated that these are crash bugs? I think it's
a little bit more than "useful argument checking".

OTOH, essentially noone defines mro() functions so it's not
that big a deal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger)
Date: 2005-03-16 21:30

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=80475

If I read it correctly, you're adding useful argument
checking that is helpful when the user does something wrong.
 However, nothing is currently preventing them from using it
correctly.

Unless it is a critical fix, it should probably go on the
head and ultimately into Py2.4.2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Michael Hudson (mwh)
Date: 2005-03-16 12:17

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=6656

Well, possibly I'm rushing unecessarily.

OTOH "arguably not actually broken" is simply not true.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger)
Date: 2005-03-16 12:13

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=80475

Are you sure to want to backport this directly to a release
candidate without it having lived on the head for a while? 
Seems a little dangerous at this stage for something that is
arguably not actually broken right now.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Michael Hudson (mwh)
Date: 2005-03-15 15:21

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=6656

Argh, this is what I meant to upload.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1163731&group_id=5470