On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:57 AM, Justin Mazzola Paluska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I wasn't aware of bzrlib's extentions to unittest — many of them,
> including KnownFailure, TestSkipped,
> bzrlib.test.ExtendedTestResult.expectFailure, and the sundry list of
> bzrlib.test.TestCase.assert* look u
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:51:49AM +1000, Jonathan Lange wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 7:13 AM, Justin Mazzola Paluska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> I think it's really worth looking at the approach that bzrlib's tests
> take here (see bzrlib.tests.ExtendedTestResult and the
> out-of-date-but-
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Facundo Batista
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What about TestSkipped? I thought that raising
> test_support.TestSkipped should behave like this: you're saying that
> you're actually NOT executing the tests, but you say that they are
> there.
I think he's talking a
2008/6/25 Justin Mazzola Paluska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The idea behind the patch is that it's sometimes useful to disable
> tests without removing them from the TestCase. For example, a
> co-worker and I have a module with a few tests that will fail for the
> forseeable future because we haven't
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 7:13 AM, Justin Mazzola Paluska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
...
> The idea behind the patch is that it's sometimes useful to disable
> tests without removing them from the TestCase. For example, a
> co-worker and I have a module with a few tests that will fail for t
