Re: [Configobj-develop] new to configobj - questions

[Jeremy G. <jr...@gm...>]

here's a more streamlined version of my repro:

>>> from configobj import ConfigObj, flatten_errors
>>> from validate import Validator
>>> s = ConfigObj(['[a]','a1=integer(default=1)','[b]','b1=integer(default=2)'])
>>> c = ConfigObj(['[a]','a1=2','b1=dsa'], configspec=s)
>>> v = Validator()
>>> r = cfg.validate(v)
>>> r
True
>>> cfg['b']
{'b1': 2}


On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Jeremy Gray <jr...@gm...> wrote:
> Michael
>
> thanks for such a quick reply!
>
>> I have a version 4.7 in the works that I am part way through with
>> various improvements / bugfixes so I can make sure this issue is included.
>
> cool
>
>>> 2. how are missing sections reported by a Validator()?
>> I'm not seeing that behavior, can you provide a minimal repro.
>
> I think I have a repro but am not positive I am doing everything
> right. its not ultra-minimal because I used two text files, doing so
> because this is close to my actual arrangement. its the first thing I
> tried and seems to reproduce the lack of error reported for a missing
> section. at the very least, going through this will reveal more
> precisely what I am confused about.
>
> so one file is 'test.cfg' and contains 4 lines (3rd line is blank--its
> where I would have a section named [b] but I deleted it from the text
> file):
> [a]
>  a1 = 2
>
>  b1 = dsa
> the other file is 'test.spec' and also has 4 lines:
> [a]
>  a1 = integer(default=2)
> [b]
>  b1 = integer(default=1)
>
> then interactively:
>>>> import configobj
>>>> configobj.__version__
> '4.6.0'
>>>> from configobj import ConfigObj, flatten_errors
>>>> from validate import Validator
>>>> sp  = ConfigObj('test.spec')
>>>> sp
> ConfigObj({'a': {'a1': 'integer(default=2)'}, 'b': {'b1':
> 'integer(default=1)'}})
>>>> cfg = ConfigObj('test.cfg', configspec=sp)
>>>> cfg
> ConfigObj({'a': {'a1': '2', 'b1': 'dsa'}})
>>>> v = Validator()
>>>> r = cfg.validate(v)
>>>> r
> True
>>>> flatten_errors(cfg, r)
> []
>>>> cfg['a']
> {'a1': 2, 'b1': 'dsa'}
>>>> cfg['b']
> {'b1': 1}
>
> it seems like:
> - b1 ends up in cfg[a] and is is not getting flagged as invalid
> - [b] is in sp / test.spec but is not flagged as missing in cfg /
> test.cfg--which surprises me
> - after validation there is now a section [b] in cfg but it contains
> stuff from the spec, namely the default value b1 = 1. I'm surprised
> that [b] shows up at all. the fact that is does could explain why I
> get a "duplicate section error" if I add the section back into my cfg
> file (in my code).
>
> I also tried doing the above but with an explicit copy=False in the
> validation step, but still get section [b] showing up in cfg
>>>> r = cfg.validate(v, copy=False)
>>>> r
> True
>>>> cfg['b']
> {'b1': 1}
>
> thanks for any clarification on what should be happening
>
>>> 3. finally, does anyone know of an existing project I could look at
>>> (and borrow from) that uses wxPython for a GUI for letting users
>>> manipulate configobj data?
>>
>> I can't help with this one I'm afraid.
>
> ah well. maybe someone else will know of a wx example?
>
> of course, just having configobj is a huge help! thanks again,
>
> --Jeremy
>