Skip to content

Conversation

@chrBrd
Copy link
Contributor

@chrBrd chrBrd commented Apr 22, 2018

Documentation for ConfigParser.items() states:

When section is not given, return a list of section_name, section_proxy pairs, including DEFAULTSECT.

Otherwise, return a list of name, value pairs for the options in the given section. Optional arguments have the same meaning as for the get() method.

This fix aligns behaviour to that specified in the documentation.

As well as fixing bpo-33333 this also resolves bpo-33251 (related PR #6446).

@the-knights-who-say-ni
Copy link

Hello, and thanks for your contribution!

I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept your contribution by verifying you have signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA).

Unfortunately our records indicate you have not signed the CLA. For legal reasons we need you to sign this before we can look at your contribution. Please follow the steps outlined in the CPython devguide to rectify this issue.

When your account is ready, please add a comment in this pull request
and a Python core developer will remove the CLA not signed label
to make the bot check again.

Thanks again to your contribution and we look forward to looking at it!

Copy link
Contributor

@ambv ambv left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We won't be doing this. This is intentional behavior of configparser for backwards compatibility with versions older than 3.2 (most notably 2.7).

If cfgparser.items(section) is surprising, use cfgparser[section].items() instead.

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

@chrBrd
Copy link
Contributor Author

chrBrd commented Apr 22, 2018

I thought there'd be b/c issues, closing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants