[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
to posixmodule.c.

> 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
test outcomes).

> 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 mailing list