homepage

Patch attached. Reviews welcome.

The functionality looks a bit cryptic to me. What is the use case?
I wonder if Py_LONG_LONG is always defined (although it certainly is on major platforms).
Other than that, the patch looks technically correct, though I'm not an lzma expert.

> The functionality looks a bit cryptic to me. What is the use case?
Serializing filter specifiers for custom file formats. The particular
case that prompted adding the code is zipfile (issue 14366).
I've added a note to the docs and docstrings explaining this.
> I wonder if Py_LONG_LONG is always defined (although it certainly is on major platforms).
I expect it will always be defined on platforms that support liblzma -
the API uses uint64_t in quite a few places, via the lzma_vli typedef.
In any case, _lzmamodule.c checks for PY_LONG_LONG explicitly at
compile-time and gives a useful error message if it is undefined.

The updated patch looks ok to me.

Committed as changeset 9118ef2b651a.

Thank you, Nadeem Vawda. I also wrote a patch for this, but because of the lack of experience it was too cumbersome.
But there are no tests for these functions. I tried to use these functions and got the random values.
>>> lzma.decode_filter_properties(lzma.FILTER_LZMA1, lzma.encode_filter_properties({'id': lzma.FILTER_LZMA1, 'preset': 6}))
{'mode': 3075124424, 'dict_size': 8388608, 'id': 4611686018427387905, 'lp': 0, 'nice_len': 739426833, 'depth': 0, 'lc': 3, 'mf': 0, 'pb': 2}
>>> lzma.decode_filter_properties(lzma.FILTER_LZMA1, lzma.encode_filter_properties({'id': lzma.FILTER_LZMA1, 'preset': 6}))
{'mode': 0, 'dict_size': 8388608, 'id': 4611686018427387905, 'lp': 0, 'nice_len': 2053908595, 'depth': 0, 'lc': 3, 'mf': 0, 'pb': 2}
>>> lzma.decode_filter_properties(lzma.FILTER_LZMA1, lzma.encode_filter_properties({'id': lzma.FILTER_LZMA1, 'preset': 6}))
{'mode': 0, 'dict_size': 8388608, 'id': 4611686018427387905, 'lp': 0, 'nice_len': 2053908595, 'depth': 0, 'lc': 3, 'mf': 0, 'pb': 2}
It seems, 'mode' and 'nice_len' was not initialized.
Tests for zipfile module with the use of these functions are broken, and I don't know, this happens because of errors in these functions or in zipfile module.

Changeset 9118ef2b651a was broken, but the bug should have been fixed by
changeset 10ccbb90a8e9. Which revision have you been using?
> But there are no tests for these functions.
There *are* tests for these functions, and they were failing on some of
the buildbots for the original changeset. They are currently passing.

> Changeset 9118ef2b651a was broken, but the bug should have been fixed by
> changeset 10ccbb90a8e9. Which revision have you been using?
I used the revision 76809:ab57e29157bb. Yes, now the bug fixed. Thank
you once again.