Skip to content

bpo-10381: Add timezone to datetime C API #5032

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

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Jan 24, 2018
Merged

Conversation

pganssle
Copy link
Member

@pganssle pganssle commented Dec 28, 2017

This adds C API access to timezone and the timezone.UTC singleton, per bpo-10381.

@abalkin I didn't totally understand what you meant by "I am not sure whether PyDateTime_TimeZone details should be exposed in datetime.h because presumably programmers should access it through the abstract tzinfo interface.", so please clarify if this PR is exposing the details you referred to.

https://bugs.python.org/issue10381

@pganssle
Copy link
Member Author

pganssle commented Dec 28, 2017

Hm. There's some sort of build error about levels of indirection that seems to only be happening on Windows. I'm not really sure what to do with that - I can take a look at it later, but if any Windows users know if that's a common thing please do let me know. This was some sort of symbol confusion because in my test I had an object named timezone.

I added documentation for the macros, but I didn't see an obvious place to document that the UTC singleton is now available through the C API.

@pganssle pganssle force-pushed the timezone_api branch 8 times, most recently from e85cfc9 to 70fe5a2 Compare January 5, 2018 17:34
@abalkin
Copy link
Member

abalkin commented Jan 9, 2018

@pganssle - IIRC, my comment on the issue was about PyDateTime_TimeZone struct which should probably stay private and not exposed in the header file. Your PR does the right thing in this regard.

Copy link
Member

@abalkin abalkin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please remove the "Check" methods and limit this PR to TimeZone_UTC and constructors.

@@ -75,6 +75,18 @@ Type-check macros:
*NULL*.


.. c:function:: int PyTimeZone_Check(PyObject *ob)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note that the typezone type cannot be subclassed:

>>> from datetime import *
>>> class tz(timezone):
...    pass
...
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: type 'datetime.timezone' is not an acceptable base type

:c:data:`PyDateTime_TimeZoneType`. *ob* must not be *NULL*.


.. c:function:: int PyTimeZone_CheckExact(PyObject *ob)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Since we are not exposing PyDateTime_TimeZone struct, I don't see the utility of having PyTimeZone_Check macros. Maybe something like PyTZInfo_Check as an accelerated version of isinstance(x, datetime.tzinfo) will be useful once we expose C versions of tzinfo.utcoffset, etc. methods, but this is better left for a separate PR.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why not just remove the _Check and leave the _CheckExact? I would think that the _CheckExact function is still meaningful.

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

@@ -154,13 +154,18 @@ typedef struct {
PyTypeObject *TimeType;
PyTypeObject *DeltaType;
PyTypeObject *TZInfoType;
PyTypeObject *TimeZoneType;
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@abalkin If you don't want the _Check macros exposed, do you also not want this exposed?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes

@pganssle
Copy link
Member Author

@abalkin Ready for review. I added a new commit rather than rewriting the history, because I figure it might be useful to have access to the tests and such later if this is ever exposed.

@@ -155,12 +155,16 @@ typedef struct {
PyTypeObject *DeltaType;
PyTypeObject *TZInfoType;

/* singletons */
PyObject *TimeZone_UTC;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't we also add a macro definition below to simplify access to the singleton?

#ifdef Py_BUILD_CORE
 ..
#else
#define PyDateTime_TimeZone_UTC PyDateTimeAPI->TimeZone_UTC
#endif

The idea is to make code in user extensions look similar to that in _datetimemodule.c.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I'm fine with that. I think I didn't know of any examples of other singletons exposed in the C API so I didn't know to do this.

@pganssle pganssle force-pushed the timezone_api branch 2 times, most recently from fb1b06c to c38ea33 Compare January 16, 2018 21:37
@@ -13,6 +13,16 @@ the module initialisation function. The macro puts a pointer to a C structure
into a static variable, :c:data:`PyDateTimeAPI`, that is used by the following
macros.

Macro for access to the UTC singleton:
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@abalkin I had to add a new section for this and decided to put it at the top, please let me know if you'd prefer it to be somewhere else.

@vadmium You did a great review of the documentation on #4699, do you want to take a look at this?


.. c:var:: PyObject* PyDateTime_TimeZone_UTC

Returns the time zone singleton representing UTC, this returns the same
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Remove “this returns” (or start a new sentence)

.. c:var:: PyObject* PyDateTime_TimeZone_UTC

Returns the time zone singleton representing UTC, this returns the same
object as ``datetime.timezone.utc``.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you link to :attr:`datetime.timezone.utc` here (and similarly elsewhere)? If so, I think they would be useful.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't see any other references to timezone.utc in c-api/datetime.rst, do you mean add other links to things other than timezone.utc, or modify other documents to link to timezone.utc?

.. c:function:: PyObject* PyTimeZone_FromOffset(PyDateTime_DeltaType* offset)

Return a ``datetime.timezone`` object with an unnamed fixed offset
represented by the ``offset`` argument.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Parameter names are normally marked up in italics as *offset*

est_capi, est_macro, est_macro_nn = _testcapi.make_timezones_capi()

exp_named = timezone(timedelta(hours=-5), "EST")
exp_unnamed = timezone(timedelta(hours=-5))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like there is no practical difference between these two as far as the test is concerned, so I suggest to drop one of them. Comparison of datetime objects only considers the offset.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ooh, good call, as written this test doesn't actually check if PyTimeZone_FromOffsetAndName actually works.

resulting number of microseconds and seconds lie in the ranges documented for
:class:`datetime.timedelta` objects.

.. c:function:: PyObject* PyTimeZone_FromOffset(PyDateTime_DeltaType* offset)
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

When I build the documentation, I see Return value: New reference. under all the constructor macros except these two, but I'm not sure where that's being generated from. I don't see why they wouldn't be a new reference, but I don't 100% grok when something does and does not change the reference count.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reference counting information is stored in Doc/data/refcounts.dat

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@abalkin When documenting the reference counts, I ran into a bit of a problem, since the reference to offset is not increased if offset is equivalent to timedelta(0), so it's ambiguous whether the function's effect on offset's reference count is +1 or 0. I went with +1 and added a comment to the effect that it's not always true.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am going to merge this now. We can fine tune the documentation during the beta phase.

@pganssle
Copy link
Member Author

@vadmium Should be good now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants