[Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1
ironfroggy at gmail.com
Sun Apr 29 18:53:40 CEST 2007
On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
> > The
> > original test failed, my new one does not.
> Then this change is incorrect: the test should fail in 2.5.0.
I think I don't get why the test _must_ fail. If it fails, I assumed
something was broken. If it failed because it was testing against a
non-existant file, I assumed the test itself was broken.
> > As for documentating the
> > intent of these tests, I don't think tracker items are visible enough.
> Hmm. Is it asked too much to go to python.org/sf/1686475 when editing
> a test case named 'test_1686475'?
Maybe this is my flag for "I'm dumb sometimes", but I did wonder what
the number was for and completely neglected to consider it being a
> When researching the intent of some piece of code, you actually have
> more information available: the set of changes that was committed
> together (which would include a Misc/NEWS change, and the actual
> change to posixmodule.c), and the log message.
> > When I'm looking at the unittest itself, am I to always search the
> > entire tracker for any bugs still relevent and pertaining to each test
> > I look at? That seems contorted, and easy to miss. I'll check the
> > tracker, and I'd like to add any information to the test itself.
> Clearly, if you think some relevant information is missing in a comment,
> submit a patch to add that information. I was unable to add anything,
> because I did not know it was missing.
I will do so. Maybe even just a link to the tracker, because of the
likelihood of me not being the only person to complete miss what the
number in the test name is for.
I've read the bug report now. I see what I was missing all along. I
think maybe you thought I knew of the bug report, and thus we were
both confused talking on different frequencies and completely missing
each other, Martin.
Read my blog! I depend on your acceptance of my opinion! I am interesting!
More information about the Python-Dev