Anonymous user
Open Source Comes to Campus/Newcomer Tasks/Issue Tracker Cleaning: Difference between revisions
Open Source Comes to Campus/Newcomer Tasks/Issue Tracker Cleaning (view source)
Revision as of 20:50, 29 July 2014
, 9 years ago→Reviewing Patches/Pull Requests
No edit summary |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 51:
* List all versions of project in which the bug was and wasn't present for you.
* List all operating systems on which the bug was and wasn't present for you.
For example, you might write:
<blockquote>Thanks for your bug report!
I was able to reproduce the issue on versions 3.1 and 3.2 of the project on OSX 10.8.4 following exactly the steps you made in your report. I also tried to reproduce on an older machine of mine which runs OSX 10.7.0, using version 3.1 of the project, and I couldn't reproduce the error there, so perhaps it has something to do with the operating system?</blockquote>
==== The Bug Is Not Reproducible ====
Line 79 ⟶ 85:
<blockquote>
jesstess, thanks for your patch and tests! The docstring for parse_request needs to be updated as part of this change.
Other than that, the patch looks correct from my inspection, and applies cleanly. I verified that with the patch applied, the reproducer no longer raises a ValueError and instead prints 42 as expected. make patchcheck also reports no errors, and the test_httplib tests still pass. I confirmed that the tests for parsing unicode strings that were added in this patch exercise the bug, as they fail with the code changes reverted and pass with the full patch applied.
The implementation looks straight-forward to me, although I'm not sure why you chose to separate your changes out into a new function. Can you explain your reasoning?</blockquote>
| |||