The code looks weird (already did before the change):

    RandAL = [stringprep.in_table_d1(x) for x in label]    any_in_table_d2 = any(stringprep.in_table_d2(x) for x in label)    for c in RandAL:        if c:            if any_in_table_d2:                raise UnicodeError("Violation of BIDI requirement 2")            if not RandAL[0] or not RandAL[-1]:                raise UnicodeError("Violation of BIDI requirement 3")

Doesn't make sense to run the same two inner checks multiple times (note they don't usec). Either they raise the first time or they never do.

Is there a good reason it's not as follows? (Replaced thefor+if withif any, unindented, and moved the D2 check back down where it was before the change).

    RandAL = [stringprep.in_table_d1(x) for x in label]    if any(RandAL):        if any(stringprep.in_table_d2(x) for x in label):            raise UnicodeError("Violation of BIDI requirement 2")        if not RandAL[0] or not RandAL[-1]:            raise UnicodeError("Violation of BIDI requirement 3")

I think it's only because the code was written in 2003 andany didn't exist yet (introduced in 2006).

The code looks weird (already did before the change)

+10

I think it's only because the code was written in 2003 andany didn't exist yet (introduced in 2006).

Ahha, that explains so much. Thanks@pochmann! I was aiming for minimal diff once I profiled to find the hot spot, but this code is pretty gross. I'll go with your suggested version.Much cleaner.

random observation: If someone wanted a truly minimal patch, putting abreak at the end of thefor c in RandAL: ... if c: ... block would also work. I went with the modern easier to understand suggestion from Stefan.

cc'ing release managers@pablogsal and@ambv for feedback on the shape of this to backport. See the code review comment i left on the news entry.

Q: backport (a) just the unnecessarily quadratic algorithm removal OR (b) also the added up front length check.

I think either would be fine. The conservative backport choice would be (a). I'm happy to do either.

🤖 New build scheduled with the buildbot fleet by@gpshead for commitbd51456 🤖

If you want to schedule another build, you need to add the ":hammer: test-with-buildbots" label again.

Merging. I'll trigger the other backports from the 3.11 backport PR and let RMs chime in there.

Thanks@gpshead for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.11.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

GH-99222 is a backport of this pull request to the3.11 branch.

⚠️⚠️⚠️ Buildbot failure⚠️⚠️⚠️

Hi! The buildbots390x Fedora Clang Installed 3.x has failed when building commitd315722.

What do you need to do:

1. Don't panic.
2. Checkthe buildbot page in the devguide if you don't know what the buildbots are or how they work.
3. Go to the page of the buildbot that failed (https://buildbot.python.org/all/#builders/531/builds/2842) and take a look at the build logs.
4. Check if the failure is related to this commit (d315722) or if it is a false positive.
5. If the failure is related to this commit, please, reflect that on the issue and make a new Pull Request with a fix.

You can take a look at the buildbot page here:

https://buildbot.python.org/all/#builders/531/builds/2842

Summary of the results of the build (if available):

fatal:unable to access 'https://github.com/python/cpython.git/': The requested URL returned error: 503chmod:cannot access 'target/': No such file or directorymake:*** No rule to make target 'distclean'.  Stop.

The buildbot failed with:fatal: unable to access 'https://github.com/python/cpython.git/': The requested URL returned error: 503
https://www.githubstatus.com/ confirms “intermittent availability issues on some GitHub services”. Later builds are green.

The buildbot failed with: fatal: unable to access 'https://github.com/python/cpython.git/': The requested URL returned error: 503

Network issues should not mark a whole build as failure. I made buildbot change to mark next builds as "warning" rather than "failed" in this case:python/buildmaster-config#348