gh-96092: Fix traceback.walk_stack(None) skipping too many frames #129330
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
As it says in its documentation, walk_stack was meant to just follow `f.f_back` like other functions in the traceback module. Instead it was previously doing `f.f_back.f_back` and then this changed to `f_back.f_back.f_back.f_back' in Python 3.11 breaking its behavior for external users. This happened because the walk_stack function never really had any good direct tests and its only consumer in the traceback module was `extract_stack` which passed the result into `StackSummary.extract`. As a generator, it was previously capturing the state of the stack when it was first iterated over, rather than the stack when `walk_stack` was called. Meaning when called inside the two method deep `extract` and `extract_stack` calls, two `f_back`s were needed. When 3.11 modified the sequence of calls in `extract`, two more `f_back`s were needed to make the tests happy. This changes the generator to capture the stack when `walk_stack` is called, rather than when it is first iterated over. Since this is technically a breaking change in behavior, there is a versionchanged to the documentation. In practice, this is unlikely to break anyone, you would have been needing to store the result of `walk_stack` and expecting it to change.
|
+@pablogsal as a reviewer. This was a bug I accidentally introduced in PEP 657's implementation Finally getting around to fixing it. Technically the fix is a change in behavior itself but it is unlikely to break anyone, they would have had to store the result of walker = traceback.walk_stack(None)
...
"""
frames = list(walker)
# ^ Previously this would return the frames
# as of when the `list` was called.
# Now returns the frames where `traceback.walk_stack` was called.A quick search of traceback.walk_stack shows that most people either pass it into |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #96092. Please see my comment in #99015 (comment) for more details on the root cause analysis of this issue.
This changes the
walk_stackgenerator to capture the stack whenwalk_stackis called, rather than when it is first iterated over. Since this is technically a breaking change in behavior, I added a versionchanged to the documentation. In practice, this is unlikely to break anyone, you would have been needing to store the result ofwalk_stackand expecting it to change.It also adds a direct test for what the innermost frame
walk_stackreturns is.📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--129330.org.readthedocs.build/