-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
gh-96268: Fix loading invalid UTF-8 #96270
Merged
Merged
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e4aaa14
gh-96268: Fix loading invalid UTF-8
mdboom 407eef7
Add blurb
mdboom e453819
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into fix-valid-utf8
mdboom 3d60ff7
Fix blurb
mdboom 5cc57ad
Use assertIn instead
mdboom ad4de7a
Fix reference to other decoding function
mdboom 18927b1
Fix coding style
mdboom f741a9d
Add comments about handled code ranges in each branch
mdboom f8e9e6e
Fix line number in error message
mdboom ace4a8c
Remove obsolete comment
mdboom df074a8
PEP7
mdboom File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions
2
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Core and Builtins/2022-08-25-10-19-34.gh-issue-96268.AbYrLB.rst
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ | ||
Loading a file with invalid UTF-8 will now report the broken character at | ||
the correct location. |
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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Am I miscounting here? The string in the template appears to me to be on the 4th line.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good catch. Indeed you are correct.
The generation of the error message adds 1 to
tok->lineno
. I don't know if that's correct or not, but it seems like other error messages that reporttok->lineno
don't do that.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hm. There's a comment in tokenizer.c right above the PyErr_Format() call explaining why 1 has to be added. But I wonder if your change disturbed this logic? I don't understand how, though. It could also be that the comment was wrong. Maybe @pablogsal understands this logic?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IIRC this is because the parser (or at least some parts of it) emits line numbers that start with 0 but the rest of the VM needs line numbers starting at 1 to display exceptions. But there has been some time since I had to deal with this so some details could be missing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The mystery is that in the updated test, an error in a string on line 4 is reported at line 5. Unless I misread the test.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hummmm, that may be pointing to something breaking. I bet that this is pointing past the file. Without looking in detail I don't know exactly what could be going on with this specific test. Unfortunately it may be that there was some implicit contract on the reporting that these changes are breaking.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, I think there is some kind of bug here. These are the errors in different versions:
So something changed in 3.10 around this, it seems.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that line is just wrong because the line generated is already good for the exception. I made this change:
And the full (current) test suite passes without errors:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mdboom do you want to include the fix in this PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@pablogsal: Yes, it makes sense to just fix this in this PR.