'str' object has no attribute 'decode'

[Failure404]

I am trying to use user caching, after setting "cache-storage=db" I am getting

File "/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/xclib/utf8.py", line 19, in unutf8
    return u.decode('utf-8', opts)
AttributeError: 'str' object has no attribute 'decode'

It seems like the object is already decoded.
With this fix I was able to successfully enable user caching.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #76 into master will decrease coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is 75%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #76      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   78.01%   77.98%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files          18       18              
  Lines         928      931       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits          724      726       +2     
- Misses        204      205       +1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
xclib/utf8.py	95.23% <75%> (-4.77%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6a62dbc...28d96a1. Read the comment docs.

[MarcelWaldvogel]

shouldn't this be return u instead?

[Failure404]

Probably yes,
but I am not familiar with the code and I thought there could be cases where the object is not already decoded.
If that's not the case, then return u sounds like the most logical approach :-)

[MarcelWaldvogel]

Thanks for the PR.

This triggered me to notice that I had disabled caching some time ago. I will reenable it and try to reproduce the problem (and add a test case).

At first glance, it looks like there should be a return u instead of the pass.

Also, during the refactoring, clearly distinguishing between str and bytes helped catch quite a few bugs. So I would like to avoid having an automatic conversion in this generic routine. This function is used throughout the code, and not only for accessing the cache. Therefore, I would suggest to this in the caller's code instead.

Would you like to try this?