Sitelet https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/87260#top
Skip to content

sqlite3 signature discrepancies between documentation and implementation #87260

Description

@nchammas
mannequin
BPO 43094
Nosy @berkerpeksag, @serhiy-storchaka, @nchammas, @erlend-aasland
PRs
  • bpo-43094: Update sqlite3 docs to match implementation #24489
  • Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.

    Show more details

    GitHub fields:

    assignee = None
    closed_at = None
    created_at = <Date 2021-02-01.20:10:10.173>
    labels = ['3.9', '3.10', 'docs']
    title = 'sqlite3 signature discrepancies between documentation and implementation'
    updated_at = <Date 2021-03-28.21:07:22.364>
    user = 'https://github.com/nchammas'

    bugs.python.org fields:

    activity = <Date 2021-03-28.21:07:22.364>
    actor = 'erlendaasland'
    assignee = 'docs@python'
    closed = False
    closed_date = None
    closer = None
    components = ['Documentation']
    creation = <Date 2021-02-01.20:10:10.173>
    creator = 'nchammas'
    dependencies = []
    files = []
    hgrepos = []
    issue_num = 43094
    keywords = ['patch']
    message_count = 10.0
    messages = ['386100', '386120', '386708', '386741', '386806', '386813', '386826', '389544', '389552', '389651']
    nosy_count = 5.0
    nosy_names = ['docs@python', 'berker.peksag', 'serhiy.storchaka', 'nchammas', 'erlendaasland']
    pr_nums = ['24489']
    priority = 'normal'
    resolution = None
    stage = 'patch review'
    status = 'open'
    superseder = None
    type = None
    url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue43094'
    versions = ['Python 3.9', 'Python 3.10']

    Activity

    1. nchammas commented on Feb 1, 2021

      nchammasmannequin
      MannequinAuthor

      The doc for sqlite3.create_function shows the signature as follows:

      https://docs.python.org/3.9/library/sqlite3.html#sqlite3.Connection.create_function

      create_function(name, num_params, func, *, deterministic=False)
      

      But it appears that the parameter name is narg, not num_params. Trying num_params yields:

      TypeError: function missing required argument 'narg' (pos 2)
      
    2. erlend-aasland commented on Feb 1, 2021

      @erlend-aasland
      Contributor

      There's also a discrepancy between the docs and the signature for create_aggregate():

      https://docs.python.org/3.9/library/sqlite3.html#sqlite3.Connection.create_aggregate

      create_aggregate(name, num_params, aggregate_class)

      The second parameter is named n_arg, here with an underscore.

      I'm not sure what's the best fix; fixing the docs or the signatures. If we fix the signatures, we'll at least get a kind of consistency.

    3. erlend-aasland commented on Feb 9, 2021

      @erlend-aasland
      Contributor

      Quoting from Victor Stinner's reply on python-dev (https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/X6SZIVOZ233TLLJV43UQEHMV3ELGP34S/):

      If there are applications relying on the parameter name, it's better
      to trust the Python implementation, rather than the documentation.

      It would be better to make these parameters positional only in the
      first place, but now it's too late for such backward incompatible
      change :-(

    4. erlend-aasland commented on Feb 9, 2021

      @erlend-aasland
      Contributor

      Module level function discrepancies:

      register_converter(), register_adapter(), and enable_callback_tracebacks() docstrings were unintentionally altered in recent AC updates. Docstrings should be restored. Docs are ok.

      adapt() is not documented, but docstrings were unintentionally altered in recent AC updates. Docstrings should be restored.

      connect() and enable_shared_cache() (latter is undocumented) are ok.

      complete_statement() docs should be updated to reflect implementation.

    5. changed the title [-]sqlite3.create_function takes parameter named narg, not num_params[/-] [+]Update sqlite3 docs and docstrings to reflect implementation[/+] on Feb 9, 2021
    6. changed the title [-]sqlite3.create_function takes parameter named narg, not num_params[/-] [+]Update sqlite3 docs and docstrings to reflect implementation[/+] on Feb 9, 2021
    7. erlend-aasland commented on Feb 10, 2021

      @erlend-aasland
      Contributor
      sqlite3.Connection.set_progress_handler()

      docs: set_progress_handler(handler, n)
      impl: set_progress_handler(progress_handler, n)

      Apart from that, the rest of sqlite3.Connection seems to be ok.

      There's an ongoing discussion at python-dev about how to resolve this issue. I'm in favour of normalising the create_*() methods to be positional only (like create_collation() is now).

      sqlite3.Cursor and sqlite3.Row methods seems to be ok as well.

    8. 8 remaining items

    9. added a commit that references this issue on Jun 15, 2022
    10. erlend-aasland commented on Jun 15, 2022

      @erlend-aasland
      Contributor

      The problem is that sqlite3 isn't the only module where there are discrepancies between documentation and implementation.

      This does not stand in the way of fixing the docs right away.

      If we are going to change public sqlite3 APIs in to be positional-only, I'd prefer writing a PEP and fix all modules once and for all.

      I think that is too large for a PEP. We could create an issue for making some sqlite3 methods positional only. See also gh-93057.

    11. Repository owner moved this from TODO: Docs to Done in sqlite3 issueson Jun 15, 2022
    12. added a commit that references this issue on Jun 15, 2022
    13. added 2 commits that reference this issue on Jun 15, 2022
    14. erlend-aasland commented on Jun 15, 2022

      @erlend-aasland
      Contributor

      Thanks for the report. If there are further discrepancies, please open a new issue.

      For making sqlite3 methods positional only, please open a new issue.

    15. added 2 commits that reference this issue on Jun 15, 2022
    16. erlend-aasland commented on Aug 22, 2023

      @erlend-aasland
      Contributor

      FTR, I did start drafting a PEP back in 2021, but I abandoned the project as I found it to be too vague for a PEP, in my opinion.

    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

    Metadata

    Metadata

    Assignees

    No one assigned

      Projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions