On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Eric Holscher wrote:
> You both are indeed correct. I certainly think that the current patch can
> go in today as presented. The Ellington test suite is passing with a 10x
> speedup. We can get it to 40x speedup if we change out doctests that load
> fixtures into u
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Russell Keith-Magee <
> freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:40 AM, Eric Holscher
>> wrote:
>> > I think that if there is a plan to ever include fixtures into doctests,
>> then
>>
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:40 AM, Eric Holscher
> wrote:
> > I think that if there is a plan to ever include fixtures into doctests,
> then
> > we should put transaction management into them. We should also decide on
> a
> > syntax (
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:40 AM, Eric Holscher wrote:
> I think that if there is a plan to ever include fixtures into doctests, then
> we should put transaction management into them. We should also decide on a
> syntax (__fixtures__ really isn't too bad). This is mostly a bikeshed, where
> if it'
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> Just to clarify -- the failure I hit in the Django test suite after
> re-ordering rolled back test cases to run first is not one where a test
> assumes another runs before it (rather the reverse) or one that can be
> triggered currently by ju
> Are other developers interested in "readonly unitests on live data", too?
At our company we mostly test our Django apps with "live" data for
various reasons.
Our process is roughly following: 1. we make a sql-dump of the current
production data (or part of it if it's REALLY big) and move it t
Thank you Karen for your work.
Some weeks ago I wanted to write an "always_rollback" decorator, but found
that it was not that easy, since Postgres transactions can't be nested. The
first COMMIT commits everything. [1]
I want to run readonly unittests on my live data. I looked at your
patch, and
Just to clarify -- the failure I hit in the Django test suite after
re-ordering rolled back test cases to run first is not one where a test
assumes another runs before it (rather the reverse) or one that can be
triggered currently by just running that single test in isolation. If you
run just file
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Karen Tracey
> wrote:
> >> > OK, so that sounds like one vote for
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Karen Tracey wrote:
>> > OK, so that sounds like one vote for leaving things as they are for
>> > doctests, that is with no rolled-back tra
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <
jacob.kaplanm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> > OK, so that sounds like one vote for leaving things as they are for
> > doctests, that is with no rolled-back transaction cleaning up after them.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>>
>> > So, the latest patch on #8183 (8138alternate-nodoctestxaction.diff) does
>> > not
>> > enclose doctest runs in a rolled-back transaction. Thus the effects of
>> > doctest
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> OK, so that sounds like one vote for leaving things as they are for
> doctests, that is with no rolled-back transaction cleaning up after them.
Yeah, I agree. doctests are the 80% testing tool; if you need more
control, that's what formal t
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> > So, the latest patch on #8183 (8138alternate-nodoctestxaction.diff) does
> not
> > enclose doctest runs in a rolled-back transaction. Thus the effects of
> > doctests can still bleed over into subsequent tests. This doesn't
> act
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> One of the item on the list for 1.1 is "Run Django test cases inside a
> transaction". The ticket for this is #8138:
Thanks for picking up on this one, Karen. I thought I would have time
to look at this, but life conspired against me.
> So
One of the item on the list for 1.1 is "Run Django test cases inside a
transaction". The ticket for this is #8138:
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8138
and previous list discussion can be found here:
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/49aa551ad41fb919/3d7
16 matches
Mail list logo
