| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | ||
| Removed extra preprocessing for the ``__signature__`` attribute: the code | ||
| just check if it's a :class:`inspect.Signature` instance. Patch by Sergey B | ||
| Kirpichev. |
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low QualityI think this should test that random objects should be passed as-is by the signature function (5, None, []...).
But maybe making this implementation perfect is not urgent as long as a decision has not been made as to what follow-up to bring to the base issue.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low QualitySince 42407ab there is also type check for returned sig object. So, my commit just returns things to pre-#100168 state (enum module tests kept).
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low QualityOk, this is long-standing behavior, but then it needs to be documented. (again, it can wait)
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.