gh-141647: attribute breaks __eq__ behaviour of IPv4Network and IPv6Network

[yihong0618]

compore to other __eq__ always use subclass check

• Issue: Use of .version attribute in ipaddress classes break many methods #141647

[picnixz]

Actually, we also have a similar issue in _BaseNetwork.__contains__. version is being checked before the other type. Likewise, _BaseNetwork.address_exclude checks version before checking the type of other. And there are many more methods which check other.version before checking other. I will take care of this separately.

[yihong0618]

Actually, we also have a similar issue in _BaseNetwork.__contains__. version is being checked before the other type. Likewise, _BaseNetwork.address_exclude checks version before checking the type of other. And there are many more methods which check other.version before checking other. I will take care of this separately.

Thank you very much again.

[picnixz]

Urhg, there are other places where __eq__ and __lt__ are wrong. And other functions as well. If it's alright for you, I will just extract the tests you wrote and extend them (that means closing this PR but you'll still be credited). Is it fine? (I can also split the work into two but the NEWS entry will be the same so I prefer having one PR). If you prefer having a commit under your name for contribution purposes, I will first open my PR, merge yours, and then merge mine at the same time.

[yihong0618]

Urhg, there are other places where __eq__ and __lt__ are wrong. And other functions as well. If it's alright for you, I will just extract the tests you wrote and extend them (that means closing this PR but you'll still be credited). Is it fine? (I can also split the work into two but the NEWS entry will be the same so I prefer having one PR). If you prefer having a commit under your name for contribution purposes, I will first open my PR, merge yours, and then merge mine at the same time.

of course its fine, I like that.

[yihong0618]

closing as discuss~ cc @picnixz

[picnixz]

Actually, it's even more complex... we have mixed type equalities that are allowed, so we cannot just check with _BaseAddress.........

[yihong0618]

Actually, it's even more complex... we have mixed type equalities that are allowed, so we cannot just check with _BaseAddress.........

yes, also think about that, but old code check it, so in my patch I think its fine.

and this is not doc, I wonder user own their risk?