Use utf-8 so we support non-ascii module names #201
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
It's safe to assume that this is always utf-8-safe because we only ever use the function to send Python source code, which must be utf-8 encodable (and indeed utf-8 at rest)
RonnyPfannschmidt
approved these changes
Jul 6, 2023
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
It's safe to assume that this is always utf-8-safe because we only ever use the function to send Python source code, which must be utf-8 encodable (and indeed utf-8 at rest). Importantly, it's not relevant that the filesystem might use a non-utf8 encoding, because this directory name has already been decoded to a string and will be re-encoded from the string literal in the utf-8 source code to whatever the filesystem encoding happens to be at the other end.
Does not include tests because they'd be very painful to write, it's correct by inspection (grep
sendexec(), and can't possibly break anything that already worked.Fixes #153, unblocks #199.