-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34.7k
bpo-34044: subprocess.Popen copies startupinfo #8090
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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 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
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
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions
3
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Library/2018-07-04-17-14-26.bpo-34044.KWAu4y.rst
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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | ||
| ``subprocess.Popen`` now copies the *startupinfo* argument to leave it | ||
| unchanged: it will modify the copy, so that the same ``STARTUPINFO`` object can | ||
| be used multiple times. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This does a deep copy. Maybe it's better to implement this using
copy.deepcopy? (That's how I thought about doing it when I originally discovered thatsubprocessmodifies theSTARTUPINFO)That way there will be no need to manually deep copy specific attributes by name below. You can just
copy.deepcopy(self.lpAttributeList, memo). This should boil this entire method into one statement.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.
IMHO copy.deepcopy() is a bad practice. It seems like lpAttributeList can only contain one key, "handle_list", and the value of this key is always converted to a list in Popen (simplified code):
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.
copy.deepcopy() is only called 3 times in the whole stdlib... in dataclasses and mailbox.
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 also came up with this alternative:
It's shorter, and
dict.copymight be faster than iterating and assigning to a new dict (I didn't check...) Use whichever one you like best. 😉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.
Done