2to3: Apply has_key fixer.#2140
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe we patch 2.6 to allow assertIn here, do you want to make that change while you are at it?
Also, just noting that this will conflict with your own #2089, so it will need a tiny rebase after that goes in.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In IPython.testing.nose_assert_methods, we only add nt.assert_in and nt.assert_not_in.
I don't believe that we monkey patch unittest.TestCase to add assertIn, etc.
|
Looks OK to me. Running the tests now. |
|
(Not that there's any reason it should break anything) |
|
Test results for commit 161b7d2 merged into master
Not available for testing: python2.6 |
1 similar comment
|
Test results for commit 161b7d2 merged into master
Not available for testing: python2.6 |
|
(Testing changes to the test_pr script - ignore the double post) |
|
OK, merging this one. Thanks for all these, @bfroehle . |
2to3: Apply `has_key` fixer.
|
Argh, I think this introduced conflicts in several PRs. We really should avoid merging the larger 'cleanup' fixes when we have lots of outstanding PRs, as they mainly give us more work to do, while not actually providing any immediate benefit. |
|
Sorry about that. Unfortunately, I think we're going to have lots of outstanding PRs for the foreseeable future, so we can't afford to be too particular about this sort of thing, or we'll never be able to do it at all. |
|
Probably true. I think we should just be a little careful with the larger ones while there are non-stale PRs older than it that are either A) large/complex and/or B) from novice users who may have difficulty rebasing. Rebasing generated PRs is a lot easier than rebasing real ones. It's not a big deal, just that cleanup PRs make contributing to IPython a little more unpleasant. |
2to3: Apply `has_key` fixer.
3 participants
Following #2095, #2100, and #2134, this pull request applies the
has_keyfixer which does:dict.has_key(key)->key in dictThe deathrow and quarantine folders were skipped.