Logged In: YES 
user_id=1344176

Jim:

> (Is there something they could do to the TestCase() that
> would start to fail if you wrap it in a TestSuite()?
> Remember that they might have local standards saying "only
> one test class per file" or something, so they might never
> have gotten a real suite back in the past.)

Off the top of my head:

- TestSuite.run() requires a TestResult instance to be
passed in where TestCase.run()'s result parameter is optional.

- TestSuite doesn't have TestCase's shortDescription() or
id() method.

- Assignment to a TestCase instance's failureException
attribute will affect the object's run() method, whereas the
same assignment on a TestSuite will have no effect.

IMHO none of these is significant enough to block that
particular section of the patch. Remember that we're talking
about a behaviour that's only triggered when the given name
resolves to a callable and that callable returns a TestCase
instance when invoked.

I don't like the idea of keeping around long-standing minor
bugs just because someone, somewhere might be using them.
Can anyone produce a real example where someone is relying
on this behaviour? I'll send a message to c.l.p on Monday
and see if anyone in that wider audience can come up with
concrete cases where these behaviours are mission-critical.