GH-128520: pathlib ABCs: improve protocol for 'openable' objects #134101
+117
−63
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Rename `pathlib._os.magic_open()` to `vfsopen()`. The new name is a bit less abstract, and it aligns with the `vfspath()` method added in 5dbd27d. Per discussion on discourse[^1], adjust `vfsopen()` so that the following methods may be called: - `__open_reader__()` - `__open_writer__(mode)` - `__open_updater__(mode)` These three methods return readable, writable, and full duplex file objects respectively. In the 'writer' method, *mode* is either 'a', 'w' or 'x'. In the 'updater' method, *mode* is either 'r' or 'w'. Also stop trying built-in `open()` first. I don't know whether this is a good idea or not, so it's best to leave it out for now. In the pathlib ABCs, replace `ReadablePath.__open_rb__()` with `__open_reader__()`, and replace `WritablePath.__open_wb__()` with `__open_writer__()`. [^1]: https://discuss.python.org/t/open-able-objects/90238
17 tasks
encukou
reviewed
May 17, 2025
Co-authored-by: Petr Viktorin <encukou@gmail.com>
|
Thanks for the review @encukou, sorry it took me ages to address your feedback. |
barneygale
added a commit
to barneygale/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 20, 2025
| if text: | ||
| if buffering != -1: | ||
| raise ValueError("buffer size can't be customized") | ||
| elif text: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need elif here?
Maybe it will be better to check buffering value before first use of text?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need test on buffering values?
| info = self.info.resolve() | ||
| if not info.exists(): | ||
| raise FileNotFoundError(errno.ENOENT, "File not found", self) | ||
| elif info.is_dir(): | ||
| raise IsADirectoryError(errno.EISDIR, "Is a directory", self) | ||
| return self.zip_file.open(info.zip_info, 'r') | ||
| return self.zip_file.open(info.zip_info) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it better to omit 'r'?
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.
Rename
pathlib._os.magic_open()tovfsopen(). The new name is a bit less abstract, and it aligns with thevfspath()method added in 5dbd27d.Per discussion on discourse1, adjust
vfsopen()so that the following methods may be called:__open_reader__()__open_writer__(mode)__open_updater__(mode)These three methods return readable, writable, and full duplex file objects respectively. In the 'writer' method, mode is either 'a', 'w' or 'x'. In the 'updater' method, mode is either 'r' or 'w'.
Also stop trying built-in
open()first. I don't know whether this is a good idea or not, so it's best to leave it out for now.In the pathlib ABCs, replace
ReadablePath.__open_rb__()with__open_reader__(), and replaceWritablePath.__open_wb__()with__open_writer__().Footnotes
https://discuss.python.org/t/open-able-objects/90238 ↩