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.

Title: Increase test coverage for
Type: enhancement Stage: patch review
Components: Tests Versions: Python 3.5
Status: open Resolution:
Dependencies: Superseder:
Assigned To: Nosy List: andrea.crotti, brian.curtin, georg.brandl, iritkatriel
Priority: normal Keywords: easy, newcomer friendly

Created on 2011-12-28 14:13 by andrea.crotti, last changed 2022-04-11 14:57 by admin.

File name Uploaded Description Edit
test_pstats.diff andrea.crotti, 2011-12-28 14:13 review
Messages (6)
msg150290 - (view) Author: andrea crotti (andrea.crotti) Date: 2011-12-28 14:13
This patch increases test coverage for from 25 to 36%.

It's my first proposed patch so sorry in advance if there are problems. Much more can be done for (which is also not much commented) but I want to get some feedback on this first..
msg150291 - (view) Author: Georg Brandl (georg.brandl) * (Python committer) Date: 2011-12-28 15:12
I don't understand this comment:
+        #TODO: add more complicated tests, which might almost compile

Also, please don't use docstrings for the test methods because of unittest's "feature" to display them instead of the test method names.
msg150292 - (view) Author: andrea crotti (andrea.crotti) Date: 2011-12-28 15:36
It's really hard to understand true, and if should not go in the patch in general of course.

The sense was that the only test I added is trivial, but I haven't produced something better yet.

And ok I will remove the docstrings, I was actually doing it on purpose thinking about the unittest feature, but if the name is clear enough than is better to leave the docstring out...

Another thing, I didn't want to use tempfile.mktemp to generate a temporary file, but dump_stats doesn't accept anything else, is it in general safe to use it in this case?
msg221790 - (view) Author: Mark Lawrence (BreamoreBoy) * Date: 2014-06-28 14:08
@Andrea assuming that you get an answer to the question you posed in msg150292, will you follow up on this?
msg338076 - (view) Author: andrea crotti (andrea.crotti) Date: 2019-03-16 10:10
It has been a long time but if it's still useful sure.

I can see some tests have been added in commit 863b1e4d0e95036bca4e97c1b8b2ca72c19790fb
but if these are still relevant I'm happy to go ahead.
msg415821 - (view) Author: Irit Katriel (iritkatriel) * (Python committer) Date: 2022-03-22 21:55
The patch needs to be reviewed. If the tests are still relevant and increase coverage, it needs to be converted to a GitHub PR. Otherwise this issue can be closed.
Date User Action Args
2022-04-11 14:57:25adminsetgithub: 57879
2022-03-22 21:55:07iritkatrielsetkeywords: + easy, newcomer friendly, - patch
nosy: + iritkatriel
messages: + msg415821

2019-03-16 10:10:25andrea.crottisetmessages: + msg338076
2019-03-16 00:01:44BreamoreBoysetnosy: - BreamoreBoy
2014-06-28 14:08:59BreamoreBoysetnosy: + BreamoreBoy

messages: + msg221790
versions: + Python 3.5, - Python 3.3
2011-12-28 15:36:53andrea.crottisetmessages: + msg150292
2011-12-28 15:12:00georg.brandlsetnosy: + georg.brandl
messages: + msg150291
2011-12-28 14:57:41brian.curtinsetnosy: + brian.curtin

stage: patch review
2011-12-28 14:13:28andrea.crotticreate