Skip to content
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

TST: Allow “no setter” messages from Python 3.11 #47929

Closed

Conversation

musicinmybrain
Copy link
Contributor

Loosen “can't set attribute” expected messages to also allow messages of the form “property … of … object has no setter”, fixing several assertion failures in the tests on Python 3.11.

  • closes #xxxx (Replace xxxx with the Github issue number) This is a partial fix for ENH: Support Python 3.11 #46680, but does not close it.
  • Tests added and passed if fixing a bug or adding a new feature This PR fixes tests.
  • All code checks passed.
  • Added type annotations to new arguments/methods/functions. N/A
  • Added an entry in the latest doc/source/whatsnew/vX.X.X.rst file if fixing a bug or adding a new feature. N/A, only a partial bug fix

@pep8speaks
Copy link

pep8speaks commented Aug 2, 2022

Hello @musicinmybrain! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found:

There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻

Comment last updated at 2022-08-02 05:53:44 UTC

Loosen “can't set attribute” expected messages to also allow messages of
the form “property … of … object has no setter”, fixing several
assertion failures in the tests on Python 3.11.
@lithomas1
Copy link
Member

@musicinmybrain
Thanks for your contribution. There is currently another PR #47442 aimed at addressing #46680, and I think some of these messages have already been changed there. In the interest of keeping all 3.11 changes together, I think it would be better for you to comment any additional fixes you might have there.

@musicinmybrain
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you for the pointer! I see that the PR you linked already contains a somewhat nicer version of the changes suggested here.

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.

None yet

3 participants