Message 340164 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	mariocj89
Recipients	cjw296, ezio.melotti, jcea, mariocj89, michael.foord, pitrou, rbcollins, xtreak
Date	2019-04-13.15:30:51
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<1555169452.14.0.0778190639807.issue17013@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to

Content
Kooning great! I would Add a test for the following (I think both fails with the proposed impl): - The mock is called BEFORE calling wait_until_called_with - I call the mock with arguments and then I call wait for call without arguments. - using keyword arguments Also, I don’t have a great solution for it but it might be worth prefixing time-out with something in the wait_untill_called_with. In situations where the mocked object has a timeout parameter (which is a common argument for multithreaded apps).

Kooning great! I would Add a test for the following (I think both fails with the proposed impl):

- The mock is called BEFORE calling wait_until_called_with
- I call the mock with arguments and then I call wait for call without arguments.
- using keyword arguments 

Also, I don’t have a great solution for it but it might be worth prefixing time-out with something in the wait_untill_called_with. In situations where the mocked object has a timeout parameter (which is a common argument for multithreaded apps).

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2019-04-13 15:30:52	mariocj89	set	recipients: + mariocj89, jcea, pitrou, rbcollins, cjw296, ezio.melotti, michael.foord, xtreak
2019-04-13 15:30:52	mariocj89	set	messageid: <1555169452.14.0.0778190639807.issue17013@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2019-04-13 15:30:52	mariocj89	link	issue17013 messages
2019-04-13 15:30:51	mariocj89	create