Expose SSL contexts

[jcalderone, 2010-05-16 14:19:00]

http://codereview.appspot.com/1124044/diff/1/3
File Lib/ssl.py (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/1124044/diff/1/3#newcode88
Lib/ssl.py:88: class SSLContext(_SSLContext):
Would be nice to have a docstring here, and for the wrap_socket method.  If
there is a convention acceptable for the stdlib for documenting the "protocol"
attribute, that would be nice as well.

http://codereview.appspot.com/1124044/diff/1/4
File Lib/test/test_ssl.py (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/1124044/diff/1/4#newcode168
Lib/test/test_ssl.py:168: def test_constructor(self):
I think test methods benefit from docstrings explaining what's being tested.  I
understand it's not a CPython requirement, though.

http://codereview.appspot.com/1124044/diff/1/4#newcode231
Lib/test/test_ssl.py:231: # XXX capath is mostly untested
It would be good to add more tests for the capath stuff, then.

http://codereview.appspot.com/1124044/diff/1/4#newcode297
Lib/test/test_ssl.py:297: pass
Would this be better using assertRaises?  Right now it passes even if
ssl.SSLError isn't raised.

http://codereview.appspot.com/1124044/diff/1/5
File Modules/_ssl.c (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/1124044/diff/1/5#newcode290
Modules/_ssl.c:290: #if 0
Something left to be done here?

http://codereview.appspot.com/1124044/diff/1/5#newcode330
Modules/_ssl.c:330: }
It looks like this isn't needed anymore?

[Antoine Pitrou, 2010-05-16 15:01:55]

Thanks for the comments.

http://codereview.appspot.com/1124044/diff/1/4
File Lib/test/test_ssl.py (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/1124044/diff/1/4#newcode297
Lib/test/test_ssl.py:297: pass
On 2010/05/16 14:19:01, jcalderone wrote:
> Would this be better using assertRaises?  Right now it passes even if
> ssl.SSLError isn't raised.

You're right, this should fail if SSLError isn't raised.

http://codereview.appspot.com/1124044/diff/1/5
File Modules/_ssl.c (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/1124044/diff/1/5#newcode290
Modules/_ssl.c:290: #if 0
On 2010/05/16 14:19:01, jcalderone wrote:
> Something left to be done here?

No, I think that error check wasn't needed. I should just remove the commented
code.
(furthermode, someone might want to run an SSL server with anonymous ciphers)

http://codereview.appspot.com/1124044/diff/1/5#newcode330
Modules/_ssl.c:330: }
On 2010/05/16 14:19:01, jcalderone wrote:
> It looks like this isn't needed anymore?

Indeed. Just a leftover from previous code.