Reading with bz2.BZ2File() returns one garbage character

[cpn]

BPO	1597011
Nosy	@birkenfeld
Files	bzp.py: python script to reproduce the bug python-trunk-bz2.patch python-trunk-bz2-v2.patch

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = <Date 2007-09-17.05:48:14.732>
created_at = <Date 2006-11-15.14:19:09.000>
labels = ['extension-modules']
title = 'Reading with bz2.BZ2File() returns one garbage character'
updated_at = <Date 2007-09-17.06:48:23.973>
user = 'https://bugs.python.org/cpn'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2007-09-17.06:48:23.973>
actor = 'jafo'
assignee = 'jafo'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2007-09-17.05:48:14.732>
closer = 'jafo'
components = ['Extension Modules']
creation = <Date 2006-11-15.14:19:09.000>
creator = 'cpn'
dependencies = []
files = ['2214', '8340', '8359']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 1597011
keywords = []
message_count = 8.0
messages = ['30548', '30549', '30550', '30551', '30552', '55363', '55469', '55950']
nosy_count = 3.0
nosy_names = ['georg.brandl', 'jafo', 'cpn']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'high'
resolution = 'fixed'
stage = None
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = None
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue1597011'
versions = ['Python 2.4']

[cpn]

When comparing two files which should be equal the last line is
different:

The first file is a bzip2 compressed file and is read with
bz2.BZ2File()
The second file is the same file uncompressed and read with open()

The first file named file.txt.bz2 is uncompressed with:

$ bunzip2 -k file.txt.bz2

To compare I use this script:
###############################
import bz2

f1 = bz2.BZ2File(r'file.txt.bz2', 'r')
f2 = open(r'file.txt', 'r')
lines = 0
while True:
   line1 = f1.readline()
   line2 = f2.readline()
   if line1 == '':
      break
   lines += 1
   if line1 != line2:
      print 'line number:', lines
      print repr(line1)
      print repr(line2)
f1.close()
f2.close()
##############################

Output:

$ python bzp.py
line number: 588317
'\x07'
'' 

The offending attached file is 5.5 MB. Sorry, i could not reproduce this problem
with a smaller file.

Tested in Fedora Core 5 and Python 2.4.3

[cpn]

I can't upload the bz2 sample file. So it is here:
http://fahstats.com/img/file.txt.bz2

[cpn]

Confirmed in Windows Python 2.4 and 2.5

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/tree/browse_frm/thread/3010fd664d78010f/4166d429b25c9ed4?rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fcomp.lang.python%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F3010fd664d78010f%2F4166d429b25c9ed4%3Ftvc%3D1%26#doc_7770aa47861db452

[birkenfeld]

With your file, I can reproduce that on Linux, Python 2.5.

Which compressor did you compress your file with?
I unpacked it with bunzip2 without problems, then recompressed it with bzip2, which resulted
in a slightly smaller (51 bytes) file, which then didn't trigger the bug.

[cpn]

I received this file already compressed. I don't know what was the used compressor.
There is no error if i test the compressed file with:

$ bzip2 -t file.txt.bz2

[jafo]

There are some bugs in the bz2 module. The problem boils down to the
following code, notice how *c is assigned *BEFORE* the check to see if
there was a read error:

do {
BZ2_bzRead(&bzerror, f->fp, &c, 1);
f->pos++;
*buf++ = c;
} while (bzerror == BZ_OK && c != '\n' && buf != end);

This could be fixed by putting a "if (bzerror == BZ_OK) break;" after
the BZ2_bzRead() call.

However, I also noticed that in the universal newline section of the
code it is reading a character, incrementing f->pos, *THEN* checking if
buf == end and if so is throwing away the character.

I changed the code around so that the read loop is unified between
universal newlines and regular newlines. I guess this is a small
performance penalty, since it's checking the newline mode for each
character read, however we're already doing a system call for every
character so one additional comparison and jump to merge duplicate code
for maintenance reasons is probably a good plan. Especially since the
reason for this bug only existed in one of the two duplicated parts of
the code.

Please let me know if this looks good to commit.

[jafo]

Found some problems in the previous version, this one passes the tests
and I've also spent time reviewing the code and I think this is correct.
Part of the problem is that only bzerror was being checked, not the
number of bytes read. When bzerror is not BZ_OK, the code expects that
it returns a byte that was read, but in some cases it returns an error
when no bytes were read.

This code passes the test and also correctly handles the bz2 file that
is the object of this bug.

[jafo]

I have committed this into trunk and the 2.5 maintenance branch. It
passes all tests and the resulting build passes the submitter-provided test.