datetime's comparison methods do not return NotImplemented when they should

[wsanchez]

BPO	8005
Nosy	@tim-one, @birkenfeld, @mdickinson, @abalkin, @bitdancer
Files	datetime_foreigncompare_test.patch: test for comparing datetime objects against foreign objects

^{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 2010-07-31.18:27:01.427>
created_at = <Date 2010-02-23.21:27:36.151>
labels = ['type-bug', 'library']
title = "datetime's comparison methods do not return NotImplemented when they should"
updated_at = <Date 2010-07-31.18:27:01.425>
user = 'https://bugs.python.org/wsanchez'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2010-07-31.18:27:01.425>
actor = 'georg.brandl'
assignee = 'stutzbach'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2010-07-31.18:27:01.427>
closer = 'georg.brandl'
components = ['Library (Lib)']
creation = <Date 2010-02-23.21:27:36.151>
creator = 'wsanchez'
dependencies = []
files = ['16408']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 8005
keywords = []
message_count = 15.0
messages = ['99954', '99984', '100269', '104291', '104305', '104327', '104328', '104329', '104331', '104332', '104333', '104345', '106499', '106500', '112180']
nosy_count = 8.0
nosy_names = ['tim.peters', 'georg.brandl', 'mark.dickinson', 'belopolsky', 'wsanchez', 'stutzbach', 'r.david.murray', 'twb']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'wont fix'
stage = 'needs patch'
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = 'behavior'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue8005'
versions = ['Python 2.6', 'Python 2.7']

[wsanchez]

datetime's comparison methods do not return NotImplemented when they should. As a result, if you implement a class that can compare itself with a datetime object, this only works if your class on on the left side of the comparison operation.

This is true for equality as well as ordering operations.

[bitdancer]

Confirmed on trunk, works as expected in py3k.

[twb]

Work-in-progress test for this issue. I'll clean up the test and start work on a patch later tonight.

[stutzbach]

Thomas, could you write a unit test to go along with your patch?

[mdickinson]

See bpo-5516 for a related issue.

[AlexanderBelopolsky]

Is there a patch with a fix or just a patch with a test. If the later, maybe someone can remove a patch keyword.

[twb]

It's just a test. Finishing the patch completely slipped my mind. I'll work on it later tonight.

[stutzbach]

You're right. I asked Thomas the wrong question, and the Keywords and Stage need updating.

Thomas, do you still plan to submit a patch that fixes the problem?

[twb]

I'm still reasonably new to the codebase, but I'm certainly going to try to fix the issue.

[stutzbach]

Great! If you get stuck or have a question, just ask. :-)

[AlexanderBelopolsky]

Before someone spends more time writing a patch, lets pause and consider whether this is a bug in the first place.

My understanding of the issue is that given

>>> class A(object):
...   def __eq__(self, other):
...    return True
... 

OP expects date(1,1,1) == A() to return True, but instead

>>> date(1,1,1) == A()
False

Note that this problem can be worked around by endowing A with a timetuple attribute:

>> A.timetuple=1

Now

>>> date(1,1,1) == A()
True

This is a documented feature:

"""
In order to stop comparison from falling back to the default scheme of comparing object addresses, date comparison normally raises TypeError if the other comparand isn’t also a date object. However, NotImplemented is returned instead if the other comparand has a timetuple() attribute. This hook gives other kinds of date objects a chance at implementing mixed-type comparison. If not, when a date object is compared to an object of a different type, TypeError is raised unless the comparison is == or !=. The latter cases return False or True, respectively.
""" http://docs.python.org/release/2.6.5/library/datetime.html#datetime.date.day (Note 4)

I am adding Tim to the "nosy" list because he appears to be the author of the relevant code.

It is my understanding that this issue can only be regarded as an RFE. Given the fact that 2.x is approaching bug fix only stage (if it is not already there) and the problem is fixed in 3.x, I recommend closing this as "won't fix."

Mark,

No, I don't think this is directly related to bpo-5516.

[stutzbach]

Thanks for pointing that out.

For what it's worth, if I understand the documentation correctly the goal is to prevent the following misleading comparisons:

date with time
datetime with date
datetime with time
datetime w/ timezone with datetime w/o timezone
time w/ timezone with time w/o timezone

It's unfortunate that it throws a TypeError for all comparisons (unlike complex numbers which only throw a TypeError when comparing with numbers), but I suppose you are right that it's too late to fix this in 2.x.

[abalkin]

Any objections to closing this as "won't fix"?

[stutzbach]

None here.

[birkenfeld]

Closing now.