Hi Jan, (reposted to py-dev), On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 15:15 +0200, Jan Balster wrote:

hpk@codespeak.net wrote: i think you missed a return staement in terminal.py:

...

+ def main(self, args): + if self.config.option._remote: + from py.__impl__.test.terminal import remote + remote.main(self.config, self._file, self.config._origargs) + else: + super(TerminalSession, self).main(args)

good catch, i didn't test --looponfailing so far which needs the return value. I actually want to add a test for looonfailing and will fix it then (it's good if tests fail first :-). btw, note that i didn't really get to do the clean implementation of "remote driving". It's still the old stdout/stderr redirection thingie, basically (but at least remote_exec() now directly allows to catch stdout/stderr per invocation, even if you have concurrent remote_exec() invocations :-). The thing is that i am pretty sure that execnet needs to support send/receive of (at least) simple objects. But maybe we should first try have a "pickle"-layer on top of channels because we want to assume anyway that the classes and the import structure are equivalent on the local and the remote side. With such an assumption we can probably send instances over the channel via pickle. cheers, holger