This looks good, however I'd like to add some tests to make sure we describe the behavior well:
[1] Please add a test with keys before and after the duplicate entry, to assert these are not lost (or how they are lost). Consider:
[client] url = http://example.com/message-system computer_title = frog computer_title = flag log_level = debug
What is config.log_level in this case?
[2] What happens when more than one keys are duplicates? triplicates?
[3] + but the latest defined value should be used. + """
This contradicts the test, where the *first* defined value is used.
[4] + config_obj = ConfigObj(config_source, list_values=False, + raise_errors=False)
Please add a comment explaining what raise_errors does (similar to the one about list_values)
« Back to merge proposal
This looks good, however I'd like to add some tests to make sure we describe the behavior well:
[1]
Please add a test with keys before and after the duplicate entry, to assert these are not lost (or how they are lost).
Consider:
[client] example. com/message- system
url = http://
computer_title = frog
computer_title = flag
log_level = debug
What is config.log_level in this case?
[2]
What happens when more than one keys are duplicates? triplicates?
[3]
+ but the latest defined value should be used.
+ """
This contradicts the test, where the *first* defined value is used.
[4] config_ source, list_values=False,
+ config_obj = ConfigObj(
+ raise_errors=False)
Please add a comment explaining what raise_errors does (similar to the one about list_values)