OK, so the code still looks good, but since this code is best tested to within an inch of its life - think you can write a test that ensures this behaviour is there in future?

OK, so the code still looks good, but since this code is best tested to within an inch of its life - think you can write a test that ensures this behaviour is there in future?

Sure thing

Done! Wasn't really sure about the test naming though.

I think the test naming is fine - just satisfy the linter, and I'll land it!

EDIT: Wait, 3.8 failed, womp womp. It's still in security release mode so we do still need to support it.

Wait, 3.8 failed, womp womp.

Well we can just conditionally disable that specific test that's breaking on 3.8 like in #440.

Merged in the form of #440 instead.