Slightly improve plistlib test coverage#17025
Conversation
brandtbucher
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A couple of comments:
Sorry, something went wrong.
serhiy-storchaka
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great!
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Thanks @bigfootjon for the PR, and @serhiy-storchaka for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.7. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Thanks @bigfootjon for the PR, and @serhiy-storchaka for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.8. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Sorry, @bigfootjon and @serhiy-storchaka, I could not cleanly backport this to |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Sorry @bigfootjon and @serhiy-storchaka, I had trouble checking out the |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
This can't be backported to 3.7, Edit: Well |
Sorry, something went wrong.
* Add missing test class (mistake in pythonGH-4455) * Increase coverage with 4 more test cases * Rename neg_uid to huge_uid in test_modified_uid_huge * Replace test_main() with unittest.main() * Update plistlib docs
* Add missing test class (mistake in pythonGH-4455) * Increase coverage with 4 more test cases * Rename neg_uid to huge_uid in test_modified_uid_huge * Replace test_main() with unittest.main() * Update plistlib docs
TestBinaryPlistlib(Accidentally dropped in bpo-32072: Fix issues with binary plists. #4455)I don't think this warrants a b.p.o issue, but I'm happy to create one if necessary