[Python-Dev] PEP 574 ready for review
Hello, I've put the final touches to PEP 574 - Pickle protocol 5 with out-of-band data (*). It is now ready for review. The implementation is fully functional, as well as its PyPI backport (**), and has regression tests against Numpy. Numpy and PyArrow have their own tests against the pickle5 backport. (*) https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0574/ (**) https://pypi.org/project/pickle5/ Regards Antoine. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] drop jython support in mock backport?
[resending to python-dev in case there are Jython users here...] Hi All, If you need Jython support in the mock backport, please shout now: https://github.com/testing-cabal/mock/issues/453 cheers, Chris ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] "if __name__ == '__main__'" at the bottom of python unittest files
Hi All, I have a crazy idea of getting unittest.mock up to 100% code coverage. I noticed at the bottom of all of the test files in testmock/, there's a: if __name__ == '__main__': unittest.main() ...block. How would people feel about these going away? I don't *think* they're needed now that we have unittest discover, but thought I'd ask. Chris ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] "if __name__ == '__main__'" at the bottom of python unittest files
They were never needed 😁 Removal is fine with me. On Wed, 1 May 2019, 09:27 Chris Withers, wrote: > Hi All, > > I have a crazy idea of getting unittest.mock up to 100% code coverage. > > I noticed at the bottom of all of the test files in testmock/, there's a: > > if __name__ == '__main__': > unittest.main() > > ...block. > > How would people feel about these going away? I don't *think* they're > needed now that we have unittest discover, but thought I'd ask. > > Chris > > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/robertc%40robertcollins.net > ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] drop jython support in mock backport?
Cross-posting to jython-users for obvious reasons. Jeff Allen On 30/04/2019 10:26, Chris Withers wrote: [resending to python-dev in case there are Jython users here...] Hi All, If you need Jython support in the mock backport, please shout now: https://github.com/testing-cabal/mock/issues/453 cheers, Chris ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] "if __name__ == '__main__'" at the bottom of python unittest files
On 4/30/2019 5:24 PM, Chris Withers wrote: Hi All, I have a crazy idea of getting unittest.mock up to 100% code coverage. I noticed at the bottom of all of the test files in testmock/, there's a: if __name__ == '__main__': unittest.main() ...block. Such blocks should be excluded from coverage by the default .coveragerc file. Mine came with exclude_lines = # Don't complain if non-runnable code isn't run: if 0: if __name__ == .__main__.: if DEBUG: -- Terry Jan Reedy ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] "if __name__ == '__main__'" at the bottom of python unittest files
On 01/05/2019 06:12, Terry Reedy wrote: Such blocks should be excluded from coverage by the default .coveragerc file. Mine came with exclude_lines = # Don't complain if non-runnable code isn't run: if 0: if __name__ == .__main__.: if DEBUG: Which .coveragerc are you referring to? There isn't one in the cpython repo and a current release of coverage.py doesn't appear to exclude these lines for me: https://circleci.com/gh/testing-cabal/mock/20 (line 44 in mock/tests/testsentinel.py) Chris ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] "if __name__ == '__main__'" at the bottom of python unittest files
01.05.19 00:24, Chris Withers пише: I have a crazy idea of getting unittest.mock up to 100% code coverage. I noticed at the bottom of all of the test files in testmock/, there's a: if __name__ == '__main__': unittest.main() ...block. How would people feel about these going away? I don't *think* they're needed now that we have unittest discover, but thought I'd ask. These lines were added for purpose. They are needed for running tests in separate file as a script. $ ./python Lib/unittest/test/testmock/testcallable.py -v test_attributes (__main__.TestCallable) ... ok test_create_autospec (__main__.TestCallable) ... ok test_create_autospec_instance (__main__.TestCallable) ... ok test_hierarchy (__main__.TestCallable) ... ok test_non_callable (__main__.TestCallable) ... ok test_patch_spec (__main__.TestCallable) ... ok test_patch_spec_callable_class (__main__.TestCallable) ... ok test_patch_spec_instance (__main__.TestCallable) ... ok test_patch_spec_set (__main__.TestCallable) ... ok test_patch_spec_set_instance (__main__.TestCallable) ... ok test_subclasses (__main__.TestCallable) ... ok -- Ran 11 tests in 0.040s OK ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
