On 8/19/06, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) TestCase.tearDown() is only run if TestCase.setUp() succeeded. It
> seems to me that tearDown() should always be run, regardless of any
> failures in setUp() or the test method itself.
>
> The case I'm considering is something like this, ie,
On 11/1/06, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On 03:14 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >One thing is sure -- we urgently need something better than os.path.
> > >It functions well but it makes hard-to-read and unpythonic code.
> >
> > I'm not so sure. Th
On 2/23/07, Neal Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> bool ('False')
> True
>
Non-empty strings are considered True, empty strings are considered
False. This is not a wart, as the behaviour matches that of other
sequences.
cheers,
jml
___
Python-Dev
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:43 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21 Feb, 12:30, "Virgil Dupras" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi devs,
> >
>
>
> > Specifically, I'd like to know about files managements in tests. Is
> > every test expected to clean after itself, or is there an
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Gabriel Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This gem from unittest.py is pretty much the opposite of "one obvious way":
>
> # Synonyms for assertion methods
>
[snip]
>
> Could these be removed for 3k?
>
I agree with others who say that we shouldn't
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically, can some Bazaar expert offer a suggestion as to how a
> non-developer with read-only access would best use the Bazaar
> repositories to maintain a number of patches to be posted to the
> tracker?
>
Here's what
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm worried that a mass renaming would do anything but inconvenience
> users during the already stressful 2->3 transition.
>
> I'm more in favor of the original proposal of reducing the redundancy
> post-3.0.
>
> If
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Michael Foord
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> assert_raises_with_message(exc_class, message, callable, *args,
> **keywargs)
>
I don't think this one should go in.
I think it would be better if assertRaises just returned the exception
object that it catches.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Jonathan Lange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Michael Foord
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
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
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 Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Michael Foord
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I personally find unittest pretty readable, the feature most lacking is
> autodiscovery of tests which nose does seem to provide very well although I
> haven't used it yet.
FWIW, Twisted's 'trial' has done this since about
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ``set_up(…)``
>> Replaces ``setUp(…)``
>
> . .
>>
>> ``tear_down(…)``
>> Replaces ``tearDown(…)``
>
> Am I the only one who finds this sort of excessive pep-8 underscoring to be
> horrorific?
>
> Nobody I know spell
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Mark Hammond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Let's just make assertRaises return the exception instance, it seems
>> >> like it feels the need correctly.
>> >
>> > and I meant "fills", not "feels", obviously...
>>
>> +1 : enriching the existing method in a way that
14 matches
Mail list logo
