bpo-33123: pathlib: Add missing_ok parameter to Path.unlink #6191
Conversation
|
Hello, and thanks for your contribution! I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept your contribution by verifying you have signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA). Unfortunately our records indicate you have not signed the CLA. For legal reasons we need you to sign this before we can look at your contribution. Please follow the steps outlined in the CPython devguide to rectify this issue. Thanks again to your contribution and we look forward to looking at it! |
rbu
force-pushed
the
pathlib-unlink-missing-ok
branch
from
2e2506a to
6d6f2e9
Compare
|
CLA is signed and submitted. |
serhiy-storchaka
added
type-feature
Lib/test/test_pathlib.py
Outdated
| @@ -1627,6 +1627,11 @@ def test_unlink(self): | |||
| self.assertFileNotFound(p.stat) | |||
| self.assertFileNotFound(p.unlink) | |||
|
|
|||
| def test_unlink_missing_ok(self): | |||
| p = self.cls(BASE) / 'fileMissing' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think it's worth changing the name of the file to something sort of explicit such as fileMissing. I'd rather not surprise the reader and use what seems the default in the tests file ie. fileA here too.
WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed. fileA actually exists, but I changed to fileAAA which seems to be used for a non-existing file in other tests.
rbu
force-pushed
the
pathlib-unlink-missing-ok
branch
from
6d6f2e9 to
68d5edb
Compare
Fixes bpo-33123
rbu
force-pushed
the
pathlib-unlink-missing-ok
branch
from
68d5edb to
4277aab
Compare
|
@rbu: Status check is done, and it's a success ✅ . |
Similarly to how several pathlib file creation functions have an "exists_ok" parameter, we should introduce "missing_ok" that makes removal functions not raise an exception when a file or directory is already absent. IMHO, this should cover Path.unlink and Path.rmdir. Note, Path.resolve() has a "strict" parameter since 3.6 that does the same thing. Naming this of this new parameter tries to be consistent with the "exists_ok" parameter as that is more explicit about what it does (as opposed to "strict").
https://bugs.python.org/issue33123