Skip to content

--user fixes part5: reset_env option for adding patches to sitecustomize #576

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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 19, 2012
Merged

--user fixes part5: reset_env option for adding patches to sitecustomize #576

merged 3 commits into from
Jun 19, 2012

Conversation

qwcode
Copy link
Contributor

@qwcode qwcode commented Jun 13, 2012

part 5 of the pull #511 breakup
https://gist.github.com/2822510

part 5 is new in the plan as of today.

in writing tests for the next part, I was needing support for adding a monkey patch snippet to sitecustomize.py

this change adds an option to reset_env to allow any test to add a python code snippet to sitecustomize.py.

if you recall from part1, PyPIProxy.setup (which applies a monkey patch to urlopen) was moved to sitecustomize.py. the method that places that code was refactored to make use of this new general method.

the tests I wrote for this should make clear what this is about.

@travisbot
Copy link

This pull request fails (merged 6934084 into ae867db).

@pnasrat
Copy link
Contributor

pnasrat commented Jun 13, 2012

Can you check the failures on 3.2

Test the test support awesomeness though.

@qwcode
Copy link
Contributor Author

qwcode commented Jun 13, 2012

my local tox py32 run doesn't fail on the test that Travis fails on.
looking at the assertion though to try to understand what would lead to that state...

@travisbot
Copy link

This pull request passes (merged 1d1363b into ae867db).

@qwcode
Copy link
Contributor Author

qwcode commented Jun 14, 2012

hmm, I changed nothing relevant (expect to let errors bubble up), and it passed this time?

@qwcode
Copy link
Contributor Author

qwcode commented Jun 14, 2012

I confirmed that there is not redundant sitecustomize growth in the Fast environment.
it's created after the backup is made that rebuilds the environment.
but I still made some changes to make it less likely that a refactor might make it start happening, and added a test to confirm that it's not happening

@travisbot
Copy link

This pull request passes (merged faee69b into ae867db).

@qwcode
Copy link
Contributor Author

qwcode commented Jun 19, 2012

so closed, but not merged?
how do I move forward with the plan?

@pnasrat pnasrat reopened this Jun 19, 2012
@pnasrat
Copy link
Contributor

pnasrat commented Jun 19, 2012

Umm I hit merge, not sure what happened

pnasrat added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 19, 2012
--user fixes part5:  reset_env option for adding patches to sitecustomize
@pnasrat pnasrat merged commit 4c96de6 into pypa:develop Jun 19, 2012
@travisbot
Copy link

This pull request passes (merged faee69b into ae867db).

@qwcode
Copy link
Contributor Author

qwcode commented Jun 19, 2012

yes, it worked!!

@lock lock bot added the auto-locked Outdated issues that have been locked by automation label Jun 5, 2019
@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 5, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
auto-locked Outdated issues that have been locked by automation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants