[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset 7bf3d91f8d6c by Antoine Pitrou in branch 'default': Closes #20544: use specific asserts in operator tests. https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/7bf3d91f8d6c -- nosy: +python-dev resolution: -> fixed stage: commit review -> resolved status: ope

[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: Antoine, I'm surprised, usually you're the first to oppose backporting anything other than bug-fixes and were generally supportive of Guido's admonitions about holistic refactoring. It seems you feel strongly enough about the patch to warrant telling all t

[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Everyone except Raymond seems to agree the patch is a good think, so it should probably be applied. -- ___ Python tracker ___ _

[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

Robert Collins added the comment: So, is this specific patch ok to apply, or are we going to reject it? I don't particularly care either way, but having this issue open and stalled just adds cognitive load to working with the bug tracker. FWIW I agree that it should not be backported. ---

[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: I don't think kind of shallow changes to the test suite should be backported. They probably shouldn't have been done at all. When you change code, the tests are a safety net. When you change tests, you have almost no safety net at all. If the original t

[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: Backporting this to older releases is needed to help backporting future tests. We should keep tests consistent if possible. -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

Robert Collins added the comment: Looks sane to me. Should go in 3.6 if we're going to do this or get closed to remove cognitive overhead in the issue tracker. No point backporting this to older releases. -- nosy: +rbcollins versions: +Python 3.6 -Python 2.7, Python 3.4, Python 3.5 __

[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

Changes by Antoine Pitrou : -- assignee: -> serhiy.storchaka ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: h

[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

Vincent Davis added the comment: Looks like this is ready to be applied and closed or just closed. -- nosy: +Vincentdavis ___ Python tracker ___ _

[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

Mark Lawrence added the comment: There are 28 dependencies listed on #16510. 18 have already been closed, presumably with patches committed but I haven't checked them all. 10 are still open including this one. Can we have a decision now as to whether we move forward with committing all of t

[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

STINNER Victor added the comment: I agree with Antoine. -- nosy: +haypo ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsub

[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: I think these transformations are useful, because on failure they will give you what is the actual value of the compared operands (something which assertTrue is enable to extract). Also they are clearer to read IMO. -- nosy: +pitrou _

[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: I had stopped committing patches for similar issues because there is an opposition against this. See discussion at http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.devel/145535. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

Andrew Svetlov added the comment: Ok. I agree with Teddy but Raymond's arguments make a value also. Thus we need to make any decision and close the issue (and bunch of similar issues). On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Terry J. Reedy wrote: > > Terry J. Reedy added the comment: > > The generic er

[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: The generic error message for the first is 'False is not true'. Clear but useless. The error message for the second is the more specific ' is not None'. Since the expression was supposed to evaluate to None, but did not, it would be helpful to me, at least, to

[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: While this looks harmless, I seriously question whether it is an improvement. For example, how is this any better? -self.assertTrue(operator.setitem(a, 0, 2) is None) +self.assertIsNone(operator.setitem(a, 0, 2)) This error message for the

[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

Andrew Svetlov added the comment: LGTM. Ping? -- nosy: +asvetlov ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

Ezio Melotti added the comment: LGTM. -- nosy: +ezio.melotti stage: patch review -> commit review ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bu

[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: Rietveld's within-line diff highlighting really helps reviewing this sort of thing. LGTM. -- nosy: +terry.reedy ___ Python tracker ___

[issue20544] Use specific asserts in operator tests

New submission from Serhiy Storchaka: The proposed patch makes the operator module tests use more specific asserts. This will provide more useful failure report. -- components: Tests files: test_operator_asserts.patch keywords: easy, patch messages: 210540 nosy: serhiy.storchaka priorit