Repository navigation
Add support for system.methodSignature() to XMLRPC Server #57613
Description
| BPO | 13404 |
|---|---|
| Nosy | @loewis, @rhettinger, @merwok, @florentx, @vajrasky |
| Files |
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 2011-11-14.17:33:42.287>
labels = ['type-feature', 'library']
title = 'Add support for system.methodSignature() to XMLRPC Server'
updated_at = <Date 2013-09-23.07:37:05.043>
user = 'https://github.com/rhettinger'bugs.python.org fields:
activity = <Date 2013-09-23.07:37:05.043>
actor = 'vajrasky'
assignee = 'none'
closed = False
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['Library (Lib)']
creation = <Date 2011-11-14.17:33:42.287>
creator = 'rhettinger'
dependencies = []
files = ['31847']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 13404
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 3.0
messages = ['147623', '147641', '198315']
nosy_count = 5.0
nosy_names = ['loewis', 'rhettinger', 'eric.araujo', 'flox', 'vajrasky']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = None
stage = None
status = 'open'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue13404'
versions = ['Python 3.4']
Activity
rhettinger commentedon Nov 14, 2011
Currently, the server has a stub method that returns: 'signatures not supported'.
Using the inspect module, it shouldn't be difficult to provide function/method signatures for over-the-wire introspection.
loewis commentedon Nov 14, 2011
How do you infer the data types for the parameters?
vajrasky commentedon Sep 23, 2013
I don't think we can, unless we force them to use function annotation. If they don't use that feature, then we say the signature is not supported.
The problem is getting deeper if we are talking about return value type.
I therefore embrace the dynamic nature of Python with this patch.