| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Thanks! I expected to be able to use relative_to() as described in this PR, I'm happy to know it is being worked on. Python 3.9 included an is_relative_to() method to PurePath(). Should that method gain a strict argument as well? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
I don't know, a is_relative_to with that option would return always true because when you're allowed to traverse the tree structure every path is relative to the other (only exception being when one path is absolute and the other is not or if they are on different discs on windows) anyway if there are useful use cases that I'm missing let me know, I have no problem adding that functionality.
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
A what's new entry should go in What's New 3.11. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Co-authored-by: Terry Jan Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu>
|
Hi, I'm sorry but I'm not sure about the what's new entry, should I put it under Improved Modules > pathlib? Something like: pathlib ------- :meth:`pathlib.PurePath.relative_to` now allows a path that is not a direct child of the current if the *strict* keyword-only argument is set to False, the new behavior is more consistent with :meth:`os.relpath`. (Contributed by Domenico Ragusa in :issue:`40358`.) |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good - a couple of comments on the docs.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| .. versionadded:: 3.11 | ||
| The *strict* argument (pre-3.11 behavior is strict). | ||
| .. versionadded:: 3.10 | ||
| The *strict* argument (pre-3.10 behavior is strict). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Duplication?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, I didn't notice this, thanks.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| ValueError: '/etc/passwd' is not on the same drive as 'foo' OR one path is relative and the other is absolute. | ||
|
|
||
| NOTE: This function is part of :class:`PurePath` and works with strings. It does not check or access the underlying file structure. | ||
| If the path doesn't start with *other* and *strict* is ``True``, :exc:`ValueError` is raised. If *strict* is ``False`` and one path is relative and the other is absolute or if they reference different drives :exc:`ValueError` is raised. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the key difference should be spelled out in terms of whether adding .. entries is allowed. How about something like this?
In strict mode (the default), the path must start with *other*. In non-strict
mode, ``..`` entries may be added to form the relative path. In all other
cases, such as the paths referencing different drives, :exe:`ValueError` is
raised.
.. warning::
Non-strict mode assumes that no symlinks are present in the path; you
should call :meth:`~Path.resolve` first to ensure this.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This is indeed tricky to phrase! How about: :meth:`pathlib.PurePath.relative_to` now supports generating relative paths containing ``..`` entries if its new *strict* keyword-only argument is set to ``False``. The new behavior is more consistent with :func:`os.path.relpath`. (Contributed by Domenico Ragusa in :issue:`40358`.) |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@barneygale I've added the what's new entry with the clearer language and fixed the documentation as you suggested. Thanks.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| .. versionadded:: 3.11 | ||
| The *strict* argument (pre-3.11 behavior is strict). | ||
| .. versionadded:: 3.10 | ||
| The *strict* argument (pre-3.10 behavior is strict). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, I didn't notice this, thanks.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
I'm trying to think if there's a better word than 'strict'. In other places, 'strict' usually refers to our behaviour when we get an error from the OS. In this case it's more to do with whether we tolerate the possibility of the path's meaning changing in our pure operation that can't ever raise OSError anyway. Perhaps something like parents=True to enable the new behaviour, mirroring mkdir()? Or walk_up? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Yeah, strict doesn't give any clue about the actual function. I like walk_up, I'll change it to that tomorrow. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Sorry for the long delay, I just updated the code to follow the suggestion you made about the name of the option. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
| When *walk_up* is False, the default, the path must start with *other*, | ||
| when it's True ``..`` entries may be added to form the relative path. In | ||
| all other cases, such as the paths referencing different drives, | ||
| :exc:`ValueError` is raised. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this documentation needs to occur before the examples of using walk_up.
So, either move it after "ValueError is raised", or split the examples into two parts.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Aside from a small docs issue, this looks great to me. Really useful feature, nice implementation :) Others may want to chip in on the naming of walk_up. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Hey @domragusa , there has been further interest in this over on the Python discourse; any chance you could tweak the docs, fix the merge conflicts and retrigger the builds? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
I have made the requested changes; please review again |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Thanks for making the requested changes! @brettcannon: please review the changes made to this pull request. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@domragusa: Status check is done, and it's a failure or timed out ❌. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
I'm not sure I understand the last comment, what status check has failed? Should I do anything else? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Status check is done, and it's a success ✅. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@domragusa thanks so much for your patience with this! |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
I'm very happy to see this being merged, thanks to @brettcannon and everyone else who helped along the way :) |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Maybe I‘m misunderstanding, but this was an incompatibility to path.relpath which is now fixed. Should it not be considered a bug, and the fix be back-ported to a few versions? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
I don't think anybody is currently relying on pathlib for this behaviour, in fact when I looked around for anwsers they were generally saying to use os.path.relpath and also the original developer told me it was the intended behaviour (see #84538), so I'm not convinced we should consider it as a bug. Anyway, if there are specific arguments for backporting it's fine by me. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Ok, the table at the end of the pathlib doc was augmented, and relpath was listed with a comment. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Hi With respect to the backporting, I took this pull request and created a small package out of it, following the backports package guidelines. I included some of the tests. https://pypi.org/project/backports-pathlib-relative-to/0.1.0/ https://github.com/zeehio/backports-pathlib-relative-to Issues and pull requests are welcome |
Sorry, something went wrong.
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
By default, :meth:pathlib.PurePath.relative_to doesn't deal with paths that are not a direct prefix of the other, raising an exception in that instance. This change adds a walk_up parameter that can be set to allow for using .. to calculate the relative path.
example:
>>> p = PurePosixPath('/etc/passwd') >>> p.relative_to('/etc') PurePosixPath('passwd') >>> p.relative_to('/usr') Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> File "pathlib.py", line 940, in relative_to raise ValueError(error_message.format(str(self), str(formatted))) ValueError: '/etc/passwd' does not start with '/usr' >>> p.relative_to('/usr', strict=False) PurePosixPath('../etc/passwd')https://bugs.python.org/issue40358
Automerge-Triggered-By: GH:brettcannon