[Python-Dev] Python 2.5.1
"Martin v. Löwis"
martin at v.loewis.de
Sun Apr 29 19:51:46 CEST 2007
>> > 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.
Correct. That is the whole point of this patch: It fixes a bug in
2.5.0, and provides a test case to show that the bug was fixed. The
interesting change here is *not* the test case, but the change
> If it failed because it was testing against a
> non-existant file, I assumed the test itself was broken.
Right. It shouldn't fail if the file is absent (it shouldn't
pass in that case, either, but regrtest has no support for INCONCLUSIVE
> 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.
Ok. However, this pattern is quite common in the Python test suite
(62 test cases, with prefixes such as test_, test_bug_, test_sf_,
test_bug, test_patch_), so adding it just to this single test case
may be a drop in the ocean for people unfamiliar with that convention.
> 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.
Ok! When you come up with a way to test this problem "stand-alone"
(i.e. without relying on the pagefile), please submit a patch. I'll
let this sit for some time, and if nothing happens, I go for
Khalid's patch before 2.5.2 is released (which is still months
More information about the Python-Dev