homepage

Example:
>>> import rlcompleter
>>> completer = rlcompleter.Completer()
>>> class A(object):
... foo = None
>>> class B(A):
... pass
>>> b = B()
>>> print([completer.complete("b.foo", i) for i in range(4)])
['b.foo', 'b.foo', 'b.foo', None]
I would expect the completions to be unique.
This happens because the possible words to match are put into a list.
A possible fix is putting them into a set instead.
Patch attached.

The patch looks good. Could you add a test?

Hi,
here finally the updated patch with test case.
It depends on and should be applied after the patch included in issue22141.
This patch does changes two things:
1) completions are now unique
2) completions are now in no specific order
I had to touch some other rlcompleter tests because they assumed a certain order of the returned matches.
Thanks for reviewing!

I don't know why there's no review link for your patch. Anyway..
+ self.assertTrue(c.complete("A.foo", 0) in ['A.foo(', 'A.foobar('])
+ self.assertTrue(c.complete("A.foo", 1) in ['A.foo(', 'A.foobar('])
You can use self.assertIn for these.
+ self.assertEqual(c.complete("b.foo", 1), None)
self.assertIsNone.
Otherwise, the patch looks good to me.

Thanks for reviewing!
test now use assertIn and assertIsNone as suggested
PS: My Contributors Agreement is in progress. Just emailed the PSF with some question (but I intend to sign it)

+ return list(set(matches))
Shouldn't this be sorted before being returned?

I couldn't find anything concerning order in the docs so I didn't see any reason the have them sorted.
I'm not opposed to sorting them. I guess you could call me +0 on returning sorted(set(matches))

sorry it took so long but my contributor agreement is now signed.
Do you want me to write a patch with the results sorted?
If so, should I also change the docs to reflect that the results are sorted? This would then also affect other implementations because they would be required to also return sorted results.

I think this was fixed by Issue 25663. (Sorry I wasn’t aware of the work already done here.)

Actually more like Issue 25590 (this was about attribute names, not global names)