Issue 29624606: Noissue - Fixed false positive A203 when using "yield from"

Keyboard Shortcuts

	File
u :	up to issue
m :	publish + mail comments
M :	edit review message
j / k :	jump to file after / before current file
J / K :	jump to next file with a comment after / before current file
	Side-by-side diff
i :	toggle intra-line diffs
e :	expand all comments
c :	collapse all comments
s :	toggle showing all comments
n / p :	next / previous diff chunk or comment
N / P :	next / previous comment
<Up> / <Down> :	next / previous line
<Enter> :	respond to / edit current comment
d :	mark current comment as done

	Issue
u :	up to list of issues
m :	publish + mail comments
j / k :	jump to patch after / before current patch
o / <Enter> :	open current patch in side-by-side view
i :	open current patch in unified diff view

	Issue List
j / k :	jump to issue after / before current issue
o / <Enter> :	open current issue
# :	close issue

	Comment/message editing
<Ctrl> + s or <Ctrl> + Enter :	save comment
<Esc> :	cancel edit

Issue 29624606: Noissue - Fixed false positive A203 when using "yield from" (Closed)

Created:
Nov. 29, 2017, 9:40 p.m. by Sebastian Noack

Modified:
Dec. 2, 2017, 6:28 p.m.

Reviewers:
tlucas

CC:
Vasily Kuznetsov

Visibility:
Public.

Description

Noissue - Fixed false positive A203 when using "yield from"

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 1

Created: Nov. 29, 2017, 9:40 p.m.

Download [raw] [tar.bz2]

		Unified diffs	Side-by-side diffs	Delta from patch set	Stats (+7 lines, -1 line)			Patch
	M	flake8-eyeo/flake8_eyeo.py	View		1 chunk	+7 lines, -1 line	1 comment	Download

Messages

Total messages: 4

Expand All Messages | Collapse All Messages

Sebastian Noack

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29624606/diff/29624607/flake8-eyeo/flake8_eyeo.py File flake8-eyeo/flake8_eyeo.py (right): https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29624606/diff/29624607/flake8-eyeo/flake8_eyeo.py#newcode108 flake8-eyeo/flake8_eyeo.py:108: non_literal_expr_nodes += (ast.YieldFrom,) This change prevents and A203 to ...

Nov. 29, 2017, 9:51 p.m. (2017-11-29 21:51:37 UTC) #1

tlucas

I tried thinking of ways to test specific bits of code with specific python versions ...

Nov. 30, 2017, 11:58 a.m. (2017-11-30 11:58:26 UTC) #2

Sebastian Noack

On 2017/11/30 11:58:26, tlucas wrote: > I tried thinking of ways to test specific bits ...

Nov. 30, 2017, 2:26 p.m. (2017-11-30 14:26:50 UTC) #3

tlucas

Nov. 30, 2017, 3:49 p.m. (2017-11-30 15:49:36 UTC) #4

On 2017/11/30 14:26:50, Sebastian Noack wrote:
> On 2017/11/30 11:58:26, tlucas wrote:
> > I tried thinking of ways to test specific bits of code with specific python
> > versions only, none of them were trivial...
> > 
> > so: LGTM
> 
> Well, we could add functionality to the test runner in setup.py to pick up
files
> like A203_py3.py only on the respective Python version. Still, I'm undecided
> whether this is worth it just for this bug. Let me know what you think?

IMHO a regression test would be nice to have - but no, i don't think this bug
solely justifies that functionality.
If we are to expect / detect more version dependent syntax errors, then yes this
would be desirable. (IMHO this could as well be addressed in another Noissue, or
even an official Issue)

Expand All Messages | Collapse All Messages