Message75415
Brett: in my experience the granularity is usually fine, and not coarse.
A class decorator doesn't look too useful. A function decorator is
useful, but not enough. We also need a flag that can be checked in the
middle of a larger test. (See the patch for test_descr for many
examples of this use case.)
Nick: your impl_detail() decorator looks fine to me (except that I think
it should also accept an optional reason=... keyword argument). Based
on it, the way to skip only a few lines in a larger test should be with
a similar helper check_impl_detail(*vm_names) which returns True or False.
I agree that "impl_detail()" wasn't the best name originally, but in
Nick's proposed approach, "impl_detail()" sounds like exactly the right
name.
I also like Nick's approach because it means that in the various little
cases where, for some elegance argument, CPython is really wrong, then
it can be "officialized" by writing a test that is skipped on CPython :-) |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2008-10-31 13:44:42 | arigo | set | recipients:
+ arigo, brett.cannon, ncoghlan, Carl.Friedrich.Bolz, benjamin.peterson |
2008-10-31 13:44:41 | arigo | set | messageid: <1225460681.75.0.527495332416.issue4242@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2008-10-31 13:44:40 | arigo | link | issue4242 messages |
2008-10-31 13:44:39 | arigo | create | |
|