If the cache size for an
FTPHost instance is explicitly set to zero, a
listdir call raises an
>>> import ftputil >>> host = ftputil.FTPHost("ftp.debian.org", "anonymous", "firstname.lastname@example.org") >>> host.stat_cache.resize(0) >>> host.listdir(host.curdir) Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> File "ftputil.py", line 795, in listdir return self._stat.listdir(path) File "ftp_stat.py", line 565, in listdir return self.__call_with_parser_retry(self._real_listdir, path) File "ftp_stat.py", line 543, in __call_with_parser_retry result = method(*args, **kwargs) File "ftp_stat.py", line 422, in _real_listdir self._lstat_cache[loop_path] = stat_result File "ftp_stat_cache.py", line 168, in __setitem__ self._cache[path] = stat_result File "lrucache.py", line 164, in __setitem__ lru = heappop(self.__heap) IndexError: index out of range
On the other hand, disabling the cache explicitly doesn't raise an exception:
>>> host.stat_cache.disable() >>> host.listdir(host.curdir) ['debian']
One can notice a corresponding behavior in the lrucache module itself:
>>> import lrucache >>> c = lrucache.LRUCache() >>> c.size = 0 >>> c = 2 Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> File "lrucache.py", line 164, in __setitem__ lru = heappop(self.__heap) IndexError: index out of range
I guess, it's a question of philosophy if trying to store an item in a zero-sized cache should be considered a bug. In my opinion, this should be handled transparently, as if the cache was full. It shouldn't raise an exception, but perhaps effectively discard the to-be cache entry (in the same way older entries are discarded from the cache when it's full and new entries arrive).
I changed the policy for zero size caches in d0d66598c347f51deeb7010cd7ba849171d10690. They're no longer allowed.
Using a cache size of zero never was intuitive. Actually, it was only used to implicitly clear the cache. This now can be done with a new