multiunion error on C but pass on python about btrees HOT 5 CLOSED

It seems that C implement does not support tuple value type, but python implement could compatible with tuple...

from btrees.

I'm not clear what issue you are reporting. Can you show a traceback?

from btrees.

The issue I want to report could be shown as this example. If I use C implement, it reports an error, however if I use Python implement, it is right

Use C multiunion:

In [1]: import BTrees

In [2]: from BTrees.OOBTree import OOBTree

In [3]: from BTrees.IFBTree import IFSet

In [4]:

In [4]:  t=OOBTree()

In [5]: t["a"]=(1,2,3)

In [6]: t["b"]=IFSet((4,5,6))

In [7]: BTrees.family32.IF.multiunion(t.values())
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TypeError                                 Traceback (most recent call last)
<ipython-input-7-b83097e5a1a2> in <module>()
----> 1 BTrees.family32.IF.multiunion(t.values())

TypeError: invalid argument

Use Python multiunion:

In [1]: import BTrees

In [2]: from BTrees.OOBTree import OOBTree

In [3]: from BTrees.IFBTree import IFSet

In [4]:

In [4]: t=OOBTree()

In [5]: t["a"]=(1,2,3)

In [6]: t["b"]=IFSet((4,5,6))

In [7]: BTrees.family32.IF.multiunion(t.values())
Out[7]: BTrees.IFBTree.IFSet([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6])

from btrees.

Looks to me like the C implementation is "right". But I think that's undefined behavior (what is a union of a typed, ordered set, and a random tuple even supposed to mean?) so don't be surprised at either outcome, or if it formats your hard drive.

from btrees.

The interface definition for multiuniion explicitly spells out which types can be used as arguments (sets and tree sets, buckets and btrees, single integers).

The online help, however, simply says "Each [argument] must be an integer set, or convertible to one via the set iteration protocol." Now, it's talking about the internal set iteration protocol using the C SetIteration struct, but it's very reasonable to imagine that it means "anything you can use as a constructor to a set" e.g., "any iterable of integers."

I don't think it would be hard to extend the internal SetIteration protocol to support arbitrary iterables of integers.

from btrees.