-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.9k
bpo-44347: [doc] clarify meaning of shutil.copytree's dirs_exist_ok kwarg #26643
New issue
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
Conversation
…kwarg * It now mirrors the documentation for os.makedirs * Docstring in python source file was correspondingly updated
* Add additional clarification: nonexistent parent directories will also be created.
@tvogel, continuing our conversation from now-closed #26634... I agree, that should be mentioned and I added more detail for that. Additionally, I moved everything about Key Sentence Added
|
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.
Thanks for your contribution @jdevries3133, can you please fix the errors reported in the CI?
@nanjekyejoannah I fixed it. Thank you for your patience! |
Doc/library/shutil.rst
Outdated
that supports the same signature (like :func:`~shutil.copy`) can be used. | ||
|
||
If *dirs_exist_ok* is false (the default), a :exc:`FileExistsError` is | ||
raised if *dst* already exists. Conversely, *dst* as well as any any parent |
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.
I think this phrasing is a bit unclear. 'conversely' implies that the following is opposite to how the default value works. In other words, I would read this sentence as saying that with dirs_exist_ok=False, dirs along the path to dst, as well as dst itself, will not be created.
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.
Yeah, you are totally correct; I've made it more confusing. I changed it to be much more explicit.
I think the failing test is related to bpo-38323. I only made changes to docs / docstrings, and |
In particular, when running with tk8.6.8, as in PSF 3.9. Co-authored-by: Terry Jan Reedy <[email protected]>
…-26606) Change the behaviour of `math.pow(0.0, -math.inf)` and `math.pow(-0.0, -math.inf)` to return positive infinity instead of raising `ValueError`. This makes `math.pow` consistent with the built-in `pow` (and the `**` operator) for this particular special case, and brings the `math.pow` special-case handling into compliance with IEEE 754.
Greatly reduce pow() overhead for small exponents.
…er buffers (pythonGH-26676) Automerge-Triggered-By: GH:pablogsal
Co-authored-by: Terry Jan Reedy <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Christian Heimes <[email protected]>
…results (pythonGH-26715) * Simplify the count_vowels example * Hits and misses are fetched while a lock is held * Add note that references are kept for arguments and return values * Clarify behavior when *typed* is false.
…-26638) * Add specializations of LOAD_GLOBAL. * Add more stats. * Remove old opcache; it is no longer used. * Add NEWS
@akulakov Ah, I see what you are saying; however, I'm still happy with what I added because:
All that being said, I did add one sentence about the relationship between dirs_exist_ok and os.makedirs's exist_ok parameters. |
This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. |
* remove the note which is excessive * remove all changes to `Lib/shutil.py`, pending approval of the new docs, I'll re-add revisions to shutil.copytree's docstring. * revise first paragraph
@JelleZijlstra I revised the PR. If it looks good, I will add the paragraph about dirs_exist_ok to the docstring in I deleted 80% of the PR and rewrote the rest, so please review as if this is all new. |
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.
Thanks!
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.
The text looks good! Can you update the docstring too and undraft the PR?
@JelleZijlstra OK, good to go. Not sure why the CLA bot is complaining, I clicked the link and re-signed but it still says I'm unsigned. I'm guessing it's just a GitHub migration glitch, I've made a handful of contributions in the past and did sign the CLA. |
CI failure is a fluke:
Can you trigger a re-run? |
Probably related to python/the-knights-who-say-ni#318 |
I wonder if the CLA bot is unhappy because of all the random commits that were added to the branch earlier. |
Perhaps a force-push would sort that out? |
I just created a new branch and a new PR with a single commit: Use it if that's helpful, close it if not :) |
Merged in #91434. |
https://bugs.python.org/issue44347
https://bugs.python.org/issue44347