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 tleeuwenburg@gmail.com
Recipients LambertDW, exarkun, rhettinger, tleeuwenburg@gmail.com
Date 2009-03-06.00:25:33
SpamBayes Score 1.7186252e-13
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <43c8685c0903051625p623fedb6ud8a26535b2df4207@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1236225599.71.0.227510370469.issue5420@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
Hi JP,

I experimented with stacklevel but to be honest nothing I saw appeared
greatly more useful than the default for the tests in question.

What form would the unit tests take? Trying to assert that empty() and
full() raised a deprecation warning? I'm not sure how I would go about that,
but I'll see what I can do.

Thanks,
-Tennessee

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Jean-Paul Calderone
<report@bugs.python.org>wrote:

>
> Jean-Paul Calderone <exarkun@divmod.com> added the comment:
>
> Unit tests are a great thing as well.  Also, the deprecation warnings
> you've added are the really annoying kind.  They refer to users to the
> source of the deprecated methods themselves!  A vastly preferable use of
> the warnings system is to refer users to the *callers* of the deprecated
> methods.  Try passing different values for the stacklevel parameter of
> the warnings.warn function until you get a warning that is more helpful.
>
> ----------
> nosy: +exarkun
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue5420>
> _______________________________________
>
Files
File name Uploaded
unnamed tleeuwenburg@gmail.com, 2009-03-06.00:25:32
History
Date User Action Args
2009-03-06 00:25:36tleeuwenburg@gmail.comsetrecipients: + tleeuwenburg@gmail.com, rhettinger, exarkun, LambertDW
2009-03-06 00:25:34tleeuwenburg@gmail.comlinkissue5420 messages
2009-03-06 00:25:33tleeuwenburg@gmail.comcreate