Slightly improve plistlib test coverage #17025
Conversation
|
Thanks for the PR! CC @serhiy-storchaka, #4455 was yours. |
|
Thanks @bigfootjon for the PR, and @serhiy-storchaka for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.7. |
|
Thanks @bigfootjon for the PR, and @serhiy-storchaka for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.8. |
|
Sorry, @bigfootjon and @serhiy-storchaka, I could not cleanly backport this to |
|
Sorry @bigfootjon and @serhiy-storchaka, I had trouble checking out the |
|
This can't be backported to 3.7, Edit: Well |
|
GH-17028 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.8 branch. |
|
Thank you for your contribution @bigfootjon! |
* Add missing test class (mistake in pythonGH-4455) * Increase coverage with 4 more test cases * Rename neg_uid to huge_uid in test_modified_uid_huge * Replace test_main() with unittest.main() * Update plistlib docs
* Add missing test class (mistake in pythonGH-4455) * Increase coverage with 4 more test cases * Rename neg_uid to huge_uid in test_modified_uid_huge * Replace test_main() with unittest.main() * Update plistlib docs
TestBinaryPlistlib(Accidentally dropped in bpo-32072: Fix issues with binary plists. #4455)I don't think this warrants a b.p.o issue, but I'm happy to create one if necessary