[Issue 7298] Fix Python 3 range issues.

[eric2, 2009-11-11 20:35:52]

http://codereview.appspot.com/154060/diff/1/3
File Lib/test/test_range.py (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/154060/diff/1/3#newcode16
Lib/test/test_range.py:16: 
It might make sense to check for some minimum number of items here, instead of
just non-empty. My concern is that if an error leaves an iterator with just one
entry, when you know that it should have millions. I realize you can't iterate
over all of the items for some of these tests, but maybe you could make this
assert_iterate_contains_at_least_n_items(self, iter, min_count, msg). (Pick
better names!)

Then, make sure the iterators have at least 1000 items or so.

[dickinsm, 2009-11-14 12:37:05]

On 2009/11/11 20:35:52, eric2 wrote:
> http://codereview.appspot.com/154060/diff/1/3
> File Lib/test/test_range.py (right):
> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/154060/diff/1/3#newcode16
> Lib/test/test_range.py:16: 
> It might make sense to check for some minimum number of items here, instead of
> just non-empty. My concern is that if an error leaves an iterator with just
one
> entry, when you know that it should have millions. I realize you can't iterate
> over all of the items for some of these tests, but maybe you could make this
> assert_iterate_contains_at_least_n_items(self, iter, min_count, msg). (Pick
> better names!)
> 
> Then, make sure the iterators have at least 1000 items or so.

Thanks.  I've updated the tests to check the items against a pure Python version
of range and reversed(range), up to the first 100 items.

[dickinsm, 2009-11-14 12:41:23]

http://codereview.appspot.com/154060/diff/1/3
File Lib/test/test_range.py (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/154060/diff/1/3#newcode16
Lib/test/test_range.py:16: 
On 2009/11/11 20:35:52, eric2 wrote:
> It might make sense to check for some minimum number of items here, instead of
> just non-empty. My concern is that if an error leaves an iterator with just
one
> entry, when you know that it should have millions. I realize you can't iterate
> over all of the items for some of these tests, but maybe you could make this
> assert_iterate_contains_at_least_n_items(self, iter, min_count, msg). (Pick
> better names!)
> 
> Then, make sure the iterators have at least 1000 items or so.

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/154060/diff/1/2
File Objects/rangeobject.c (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/154060/diff/1/2#newcode492
Objects/rangeobject.c:492: * required.  Return a value < 0 if & only if the true
value is too
This last sentence of the comment is no longer valid and should be deleted.

[dickinsm, 2009-11-14 12:42:01]

http://codereview.appspot.com/154060/diff/1/2
File Objects/rangeobject.c (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/154060/diff/1/2#newcode492
Objects/rangeobject.c:492: * required.  Return a value < 0 if & only if the true
value is too
On 2009/11/14 12:41:23, dickinsm wrote:
> This last sentence of the comment is no longer valid and should be deleted.

Done.

[eric2, 2009-11-14 14:12:05]

Looks good.

http://codereview.appspot.com/154060/diff/7/1004
File Lib/test/test_range.py (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/154060/diff/7/1004#newcode28
Lib/test/test_range.py:28: def assert_iterators_equal(self, xs, ys, test_id,
limit=None):
This looks great. Much better than the isempty/notempty version. It might be
generally useful, outside this module.