Skip to content
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.

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

bpo-36004: Add date.fromisocalendar #11888

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Apr 29, 2019
Merged

Conversation

pganssle
Copy link
Member

@pganssle pganssle commented Feb 16, 2019

This commit implements the first version of date.fromisocalendar, the inverse function for date.isocalendar. It is currently missing error checking for the case of of invalid ISO dates in week 53.

To Do:

  • Validate ISO datetimes
  • Test for TypeError
  • Add documentation
  • Add news entry

Other than these known errors, the existing code can be reviewed. Ready to go.

bpo-36004

https://bugs.python.org/issue36004

Modules/_datetimemodule.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@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.

Lib/datetime.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Modules/_datetimemodule.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Modules/_datetimemodule.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@pganssle pganssle force-pushed the add_fromisoformat branch 3 times, most recently from 221f2a7 to 3d3e6e7 Compare February 17, 2019 17:38
@pganssle pganssle changed the title bpo-36004: Add date.fromisocalendar and tests bpo-36004: Add date.fromisocalendar Feb 17, 2019
(None, 1, 1),
(2019, None, 1),
(2019, 1, None),
(2019.0, 1, 1),
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

One thing I'll note is that this is consistent with datetime.date itself not accepting floats. I'm not sure how much I agree with that, I just wanted to put it in the tests to ensure consistency between the C and Python versions.

@pganssle
Copy link
Member Author

I have made the requested changes; please review again.

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

Thanks for making the requested changes!

@pablogsal: please review the changes made to this pull request.

Copy link
Member

@pablogsal pablogsal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we are missing an entry in Doc/whatsnew/3.8.rst

@pganssle
Copy link
Member Author

pganssle commented Mar 17, 2019

@pablogsal Indeed, I'm so used to adding these after the fact, it might be nice to actually have one merged with the change for once. Added.

@pablogsal pablogsal dismissed their stale review April 27, 2019 16:32

Dismissed my review while I have to do another one to not block the PR

Lib/datetime.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
(2004, 1, 1), # Leap year
(2004, 12, 31),
(1, 1, 1),
(9999, 12, 31),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe use MINYEAR/MAXYEAR here.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Instead of converting these over, I have just added a MINYEAR and MAXYEAR test. Even though it's redundant, I like to have the explicit callout of the current boundaries, so that if MINYEAR or MAXYEAR get modified in a way that breaks backwards compatibility, it will raise an error.

(2019.0, 1, 1),
(2019, 1.0, 1),
(2019, 1, 1.0),
]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would it be possible to use 3 loops to test all combinations, rather than generate these combinations manualy?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

OK, I've converted it over. I think it's a little harder to understand what's going on in the version where the test cases are generated (compared to manual), but using a loop also has its advantages.

@vstinner
Copy link
Member

I forgot to say that more generally, I like the idea. I like the proposed new constructor, it perfectly makes sense. I just have some comments on the actual implementation.

This commit implements the first version of date.fromisocalendar, the
inverse function for date.isocalendar. It is currently missing error
checking for the case of of invalid iso dates in week 53.

bpo-36004: https://bugs.python.org/issue36004
This avoids an overflow error in ordinal calculations in the C
implementation.
Copy link
Member

@vstinner vstinner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

Side note: @pganssle: maybe it would be interesting to convert datetime to Argument Clinic to provide better docstrings.

@vstinner
Copy link
Member

Azure Pipelines PR — #20190429.29 failed

Random network issue, unrelated to this change.

@vstinner vstinner merged commit 88c0937 into python:master Apr 29, 2019
@pganssle
Copy link
Member Author

@vstinner Thanks for the review and merge, Victor!

ncoghlan added a commit to ncoghlan/cpython that referenced this pull request Jun 1, 2024
* Clarify impact on default behaviour of exec, eval, etc
* Update documentation for changes to PyEval_GetLocals (pythongh-74929)

Closes pythongh-11888
ncoghlan added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 1, 2024
* Clarify impact on default behaviour of exec, eval, etc
* Update documentation for changes to PyEval_GetLocals (gh-74929)

Closes gh-11888
miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull request Jun 1, 2024
* Clarify impact on default behaviour of exec, eval, etc
* Update documentation for changes to PyEval_GetLocals (pythongh-74929)

Closes pythongh-11888
(cherry picked from commit 2180991)

Co-authored-by: Alyssa Coghlan <[email protected]>
barneygale pushed a commit to barneygale/cpython that referenced this pull request Jun 5, 2024
* Clarify impact on default behaviour of exec, eval, etc
* Update documentation for changes to PyEval_GetLocals (pythongh-74929)

Closes pythongh-11888
noahbkim pushed a commit to hudson-trading/cpython that referenced this pull request Jul 11, 2024
* Clarify impact on default behaviour of exec, eval, etc
* Update documentation for changes to PyEval_GetLocals (pythongh-74929)

Closes pythongh-11888
estyxx pushed a commit to estyxx/cpython that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2024
* Clarify impact on default behaviour of exec, eval, etc
* Update documentation for changes to PyEval_GetLocals (pythongh-74929)

Closes pythongh-11888
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants