cgi.__all__ is incomplete

[Unit03]

BPO	27105
Nosy	@vadmium, @serhiy-storchaka
Files	cgi_all.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 2016-06-06.02:58:59.604>
created_at = <Date 2016-05-24.20:26:15.614>
labels = ['type-feature', 'library']
title = 'cgi.__all__ is incomplete'
updated_at = <Date 2016-06-07.12:05:28.591>
user = 'https://bugs.python.org/Unit03'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2016-06-07.12:05:28.591>
actor = 'Unit03'
assignee = 'none'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2016-06-06.02:58:59.604>
closer = 'martin.panter'
components = ['Library (Lib)']
creation = <Date 2016-05-24.20:26:15.614>
creator = 'Unit03'
dependencies = []
files = ['42967']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 27105
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 10.0
messages = ['266265', '266303', '266308', '266331', '266332', '266337', '266581', '267508', '267514', '267639']
nosy_count = 4.0
nosy_names = ['python-dev', 'martin.panter', 'serhiy.storchaka', 'Unit03']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'fixed'
stage = 'resolved'
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue27105'
versions = ['Python 3.6']

[Unit03]

That's a child issue of bpo-23883, created to propose a patch fixing cgi module's __all__ list.

[serhiy-storchaka]

I don't think test() should be exposed as public API.

[Unit03]

Well, but it is documented in public docs:

    cgi.test()

Robust test CGI script, usable as main program. Writes minimal HTTP headers and formats all information provided to the script in HTML form.

Should I remove it from __all__ and probably from the docs, too?

[vadmium]

I don’t see why test() should be a special case. A few of the other functions seem to be just for debugging and testing too, e.g. print_environ().

Is there any advantage to having the test case in a separate MiscTestCase class, as opposed to the existing CgiTests class?

[Unit03]

Martin:

Is there any advantage to having the test case in a separate MiscTestCase class, as opposed to the existing CgiTests class?

Other than "the first test [well, that I know of] for __all__ list was in separate class called MiscTestCase so each next one follows the same fashion" and "sometimes such test would fit into some existing TestCase class and sometimes not, so let's always put it into separate class for cohesion" - no, I don't see any.

[serhiy-storchaka]

OK. This is unusual name for public function and looks rather as internal function for manual module testing, but since it is documented, we perhaps should add its name to __all__. The patch LGTM.

[vadmium]

For this particular case, there is only one existing test class called CgiTests, without any special setup or handling. It seems too arbitrary to have a second class called MiscTestCase, so I would prefer the new test be added to CgiTests.

[python-dev]

New changeset 74ed6f3fb8d2 by Martin Panter in branch 'default':
Issue bpo-27105: Add cgi.test() to __all__, based on Jacek Kołodziej’s patch
https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/74ed6f3fb8d2

[vadmium]

Thanks for the patches Jacek. This one I committed after moving the test into CgiTests.

[Unit03]

Thank you, Martin. :)