Skip to content

bpo-36686: Improve the documentation of the std* params in loop.subprocess_exec #13586

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
Merged
merged 7 commits into from
May 27, 2019
Merged

bpo-36686: Improve the documentation of the std* params in loop.subprocess_exec #13586

merged 7 commits into from
May 27, 2019

Conversation

sbstp
Copy link
Contributor

@sbstp sbstp commented May 26, 2019 •
edited
Loading

@sbstp sbstp requested review from 1st1 and asvetlov as code owners May 26, 2019 19:16
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot added docs Documentation in the Doc dir awaiting review labels May 26, 2019
asvetlov
asvetlov requested changes May 26, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@asvetlov asvetlov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The PR is for documentation update, that's nice.
base_events.py in subprocess_exec and subprocess_shell explicitly forbids non-default universal_newlines, shell and bufsize.
It would be nice if text, encoding and errors arguments are explicitly forbidden too by code

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

@sbstp
Copy link
Contributor Author

sbstp commented May 26, 2019

It would be nice if text, encoding and errors arguments are explicitly forbidden too by code

I don't mind writing the code for that, but it seems like there's a chance it will cause breakage if some programs used those params.

@sbstp sbstp requested a review from gpshead as a code owner May 27, 2019 01:35
@1st1
Copy link
Member

1st1 commented May 27, 2019

Please use blurb to generate a NEWS entry.

asvetlov
asvetlov requested changes May 27, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@asvetlov asvetlov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Almost perfect! Please fix last nits

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

@sbstp
Copy link
Contributor Author

sbstp commented May 27, 2019

I have made the requested changes; please review again. :)

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

Thanks for making the requested changes!

@asvetlov, @1st1: please review the changes made to this pull request.

asvetlov
asvetlov reviewed May 27, 2019
View reviewed changes
asvetlov
asvetlov requested changes May 27, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@asvetlov asvetlov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please use suggested strict checks to distinguish, e.g. empty string from None.
I know that empty string for errors is invalid currently but still...

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

asvetlov
asvetlov approved these changes May 27, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@asvetlov asvetlov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

@sbstp: Status check is done, and it's a success ✅ .

@miss-islington miss-islington merged commit f0d4c64 into python:master May 27, 2019
@sbstp sbstp deleted the asyncio-subprocess-std branch May 28, 2019 00:13
DinoV pushed a commit to DinoV/cpython that referenced this pull request Jan 14, 2020
@sbstp @DinoV
bpo-36686: Improve the documentation of the std* params in loop.subpr…
12e7079 
…ocess_exec (pythonGH-13586)

https://bugs.python.org/issue36686
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@1st1 1st1 1st1 approved these changes

@asvetlov asvetlov asvetlov approved these changes

@gpshead gpshead Awaiting requested review from gpshead

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
docs Documentation in the Doc dir
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@sbstp @bedevere-bot @1st1 @miss-islington @asvetlov @the-knights-who-say-ni