Fix FileBasedBuffer (and ReadOnlyFileBasedBuffer) to act more like iterators #82
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
FileBasedBuffer is the parent class for a variety of sub-classes, including ReadOnlyFileBasedBuffer. Since FileBasedBuffer can be used as an app_iter return (and by extension it's sub-classes can as well) it should probably behave more like an iterator, and the file returned from open(). Even if an iterator contains no more objects, calling bool() will still return True, in the case of FileBasedBuffer this is not true until this fix. ---- Without this fix, if an application calls a second WSGI application that returns an wsgi.file_wrapper (aka ReadOnlyFileBasedBuffer) they can't simply test to see if the application returned a valid iterator or not by testing it's truthiness. This is documented in bug report: #76 While one could argue that testing the truthiness of a return from an WSGI application is the wrong thing to do, I would argue that an iterator like object should not return False when tested with bool. bool(iter([])) == True after all.
|
LGTM I could go either way but it seems harmless to change this. |
This was referenced Feb 26, 2017
This was referenced Sep 15, 2017
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
FileBasedBuffer is the parent class for a variety of sub-classes,
including ReadOnlyFileBasedBuffer. Since FileBasedBuffer can be used as
an app_iter return (and by extension it's sub-classes can as well) it
should probably behave more like an iterator, and the file returned from
open().
Even if an iterator contains no more objects, calling bool() will still
return True, in the case of FileBasedBuffer this is not true until this
fix.
Without this fix, if an application calls a second WSGI application that
returns an wsgi.file_wrapper (aka ReadOnlyFileBasedBuffer) they can't
simply test to see if the application returned a valid iterator or not
by testing it's truthiness.
This is documented in bug report: #76
While one could argue that testing the truthiness of a return from an
WSGI application is the wrong thing to do, I would argue that an
iterator like object should not return False when tested with bool.
bool(iter([])) == True after all.
Fixes: #76