Skip to content

str object got multiple values for keyword argument #71473

Closed

Description

@vadmium
BPO 27286
Nosy @rhettinger, @mdickinson, @ncoghlan, @larryhastings, @ambv, @vadmium, @serhiy-storchaka, @irushchyshyn
PRs
  • [3.5] bpo-29537: Tolerate legacy invalid bytecode #169
  • Files
  • BUILD_MAP_UNPACK_WITH_CALL-function_pos.patch
  • BUILD_MAP_UNPACK_WITH_CALL-function_pos2.patch
  • 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 = 'https://github.com/serhiy-storchaka'
    closed_at = <Date 2016-06-12.07:41:31.780>
    created_at = <Date 2016-06-10.09:37:11.397>
    labels = ['interpreter-core', 'type-bug']
    title = 'str object got multiple values for keyword argument'
    updated_at = <Date 2017-03-24.22:42:19.149>
    user = 'https://github.com/vadmium'

    bugs.python.org fields:

    activity = <Date 2017-03-24.22:42:19.149>
    actor = 'ncoghlan'
    assignee = 'serhiy.storchaka'
    closed = True
    closed_date = <Date 2016-06-12.07:41:31.780>
    closer = 'serhiy.storchaka'
    components = ['Interpreter Core']
    creation = <Date 2016-06-10.09:37:11.397>
    creator = 'martin.panter'
    dependencies = []
    files = ['43331', '43332']
    hgrepos = []
    issue_num = 27286
    keywords = ['patch']
    message_count = 13.0
    messages = ['268110', '268121', '268123', '268128', '268336', '272360', '272368', '278158', '282148', '287506', '287508', '287526', '290270']
    nosy_count = 11.0
    nosy_names = ['rhettinger', 'jpe', 'mark.dickinson', 'ncoghlan', 'larry', 'lukasz.langa', 'python-dev', 'martin.panter', 'serhiy.storchaka', 'shai', 'ishcherb']
    pr_nums = ['169']
    priority = 'normal'
    resolution = 'fixed'
    stage = 'resolved'
    status = 'closed'
    superseder = None
    type = 'behavior'
    url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue27286'
    versions = ['Python 3.5', 'Python 3.6']

    Activity

    1. vadmium commented on Jun 10, 2016

      @vadmium
      MemberAuthor

      Playing with the generalized unpacking (PEP-448), I found a funny error message, when duplicate dictionary unpackings are included and also duplicate a literal keyword argument:

      >>> print(end=".\n", **dict(end="dupe"))  # No problem
      TypeError: print() got multiple values for keyword argument 'end'
      >>> print(**dict(end=".\n"), **dict(end="dupe"))  # No problem
      TypeError: print() got multiple values for keyword argument 'end'
      >>> print(end=".\n", **dict(end="dupe"), **dict(end="dupe 2"))  # str object?!
      TypeError: str object got multiple values for keyword argument 'end'
    2. added
      interpreter-core(Objects, Python, Grammar, and Parser dirs)
      type-bugAn unexpected behavior, bug, or error
      on Jun 10, 2016
    3. serhiy-storchaka commented on Jun 10, 2016

      @serhiy-storchaka
      Member

      Here is a fix.

    4. rhettinger commented on Jun 10, 2016

      @rhettinger
      Contributor

      This patch looks correct.

    5. serhiy-storchaka commented on Jun 10, 2016

      @serhiy-storchaka
      Member

      Since currently generated bytecode is not correct, I think we should update the magic number for forcing the regenerating pyc-files.

    6. python-dev commented on Jun 12, 2016

      python-devmannequin
      Mannequin

      New changeset 34d24c51eab6 by Serhiy Storchaka in branch '3.5':
      Issue bpo-27286: Fixed compiling BUILD_MAP_UNPACK_WITH_CALL opcode. Calling
      https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/34d24c51eab6

      New changeset 194549801bd5 by Serhiy Storchaka in branch 'default':
      Issue bpo-27286: Fixed compiling BUILD_MAP_UNPACK_WITH_CALL opcode. Calling
      https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/194549801bd5

    7. jpe commented on Aug 10, 2016

      jpemannequin
      Mannequin

      Should the bytecode magic number be bumped in the 3.5 branch? This breaks .pyc / .pyo binary compatibility for python 3.5. As far as I can tell this has never been done before in a release after the major.minor.0 final release.

      This patch has made its way into debian's python 3.5 and I've gotten a bug report because of it for an app distributed without python source.

      Looking at the 3.5.2 tarball, it does not look like the change was included in 3.5.2. If the magic number is bumped in 3.5, the comment should be changed to reflect that it changes in 3.5.3 and not in 3.5.2

    8. serhiy-storchaka commented on Aug 10, 2016

      @serhiy-storchaka
      Member

      Bytecode generated by 3.5.1 is not correct (wrong error message can be not the only effect). The only way to resolve this issue is regenerating the bytecode.

      3.5.2 was released two weeks after committing this patch. I expected it includes this change.

    9. ambv commented on Oct 5, 2016

      @ambv
      Contributor

      The magic number change in a minor release was a mistake. Let's not do that with 3.6.x releases. Since Python doesn't check if there's a corresponding .py file that can be used to rebuild the .pyc file, we shouldn't reject existing .pyc files on the basis that they *might* be broken.

    10. shai commented on Dec 1, 2016

      shaimannequin
      Mannequin

      Following the last comment, and just as clarification for anyone else running into this and thinking like me: The bumped code is not included in v3.5.2, and v3.5.3 hasn't been released yet. Should it be undone?

      No, because the bump which was encountered by John Ehresman on Debian Testing has also made it into Ubuntu 16.04LTS. Undoing it, at this point, is liable to bring even worse breakage than the original change caused.

      http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/p/python3.5/python3.5_3.5.2-2ubuntu0\~16.04.1/changelog

    11. mdickinson commented on Feb 10, 2017

      @mdickinson
      Member

      It's difficult to track down which versions of Python 3.5.x the bytecode change is in because the Misc/NEWS entry has vanished, apparently in this merge commit:

      aa0f9d8

    12. larryhastings commented on Feb 10, 2017

      @larryhastings
      Contributor

      Sorry about that! It's almost like manually updating Misc/NEWS is a bad design :(

    13. vadmium commented on Feb 10, 2017

      @vadmium
      MemberAuthor

      Diff showing what changed relative to the main 3.5 branch when merging in the 3.5.2 release: <https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/31a2a278dc85:1f8938164809\>.

      There are four news entries deleted from the 3.5.2rc1 section. Ideally they should have been moved to the 3.5.3rc1 section instead, because they were added after 3.5.2rc1 was branched, but before the 3.5.3rc1 heading appeared.

      Also, there were some minor corrections of mine and Victor’s that were undone.

      And I would suggest to restrict merge commits to changes that are already in at least one of the branches being merged. The edit to “byte-like” was not present in either of the branches being merged. In Git I think they call these changes “evil merges”.

    14. ncoghlan commented on Mar 24, 2017

      @ncoghlan
      Contributor

      New changeset 93602e3 by Nick Coghlan in branch '3.5':
      [3.5] bpo-29537: Tolerate legacy invalid bytecode (#169)
      93602e3

    15. transferred this issue fromon Apr 10, 2022
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

    Metadata

    Metadata

    Labels

    interpreter-core(Objects, Python, Grammar, and Parser dirs)type-bugAn unexpected behavior, bug, or error

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions