Attempt to further increase test coverage of calendar module

[RohitMediratta]

BPO	25528
Nosy	@rhettinger, @vadmium, @serhiy-storchaka, @matrixise, @iritkatriel
Files	mywork.patch: Patch to increase coverage for 3 additional lines mywork_update.patch: Updated patch showing the correct diff

^{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 = None
created_at = <Date 2015-11-01.09:57:43.791>
labels = ['type-feature', 'tests']
title = 'Attempt to further increase test coverage of calendar module'
updated_at = <Date 2022-03-22.21:27:14.499>
user = 'https://bugs.python.org/RohitMediratta'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2022-03-22.21:27:14.499>
actor = 'iritkatriel'
assignee = 'none'
closed = False
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['Tests']
creation = <Date 2015-11-01.09:57:43.791>
creator = 'Rohit Mediratta'
dependencies = []
files = ['40916', '41109']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 25528
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 7.0
messages = ['253836', '254421', '255047', '255416', '255417', '255423', '415815']
nosy_count = 6.0
nosy_names = ['rhettinger', 'martin.panter', 'serhiy.storchaka', 'matrixise', 'Rohit Mediratta', 'iritkatriel']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = None
stage = 'patch review'
status = 'open'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue25528'
versions = ['Python 3.6']

Linked PRs

• gh-69714: Make calendar module fully tested #93655

[RohitMediratta]

Opened to submit a patch.

• make patchcheck succeeded
• full testsuite succeeded
• Old coverage
  Lib/calendar.py 375 54 86% 511, 519, 541, 608-699, 703
• New coverage
  Lib/calendar.py 375 51 86% 608-699, 703

[vadmium]

Rohit, it looks like your patch is reversed. The lines with a + sign already exist; are the - lines your proposed additions? Equivalently, revision f7db966c9fee already exists; is fb9d4ccbadf0 your new proposed revision?

Assuming the patch is reversed, I suggest keeping the locale=None case, perhaps as a separate test case or loop iteration. Otherwise you are throwing out one test case to add another.

[RohitMediratta]

Thanks for the comments. I did indeed have the patch reversed. I've resolved it here.

Martin: I had the locale=None case in the patch.

[matrixise]

no problem about the second patch of Rohit.

pass the test with default and I have tested the code in the REPL.

[serhiy-storchaka]

The problem with Rohit's patch is that it throws out existing test case.

[matrixise]

Sure,

But the patch is correct.

Now, you are right, we have to ask him a new patch where the function is really tested.

[iritkatriel]

The patch needs to be reviewed. If the tests are still relevant and increase coverage, it needs to be converted to a GitHub PR. Otherwise this issue can be closed.

See also bpo-13330.

[AA-Turner]

This hasn't been converted into a PR, if someone would like to we can re-open this issue in the future.

A