Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Move embedding tests to their own test module #76317

Closed
ncoghlan opened this issue Nov 26, 2017 · 6 comments
Closed

Move embedding tests to their own test module #76317

ncoghlan opened this issue Nov 26, 2017 · 6 comments
Labels
3.7 (EOL) end of life 3.8 only security fixes tests Tests in the Lib/test dir type-feature A feature request or enhancement

Comments

@ncoghlan
Copy link
Contributor

BPO 32136
Nosy @ncoghlan, @vstinner, @ericsnowcurrently, @zooba
PRs
  • bpo-32136: Separate embedding tests from C API tests #4567
    		•

    Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.

    Show more details

    GitHub fields:

    assignee = None
closed_at = <Date 2017-11-27.22:12:15.292>
created_at = <Date 2017-11-26.04:37:15.680>
labels = ['3.7', '3.8', 'type-feature', 'tests']
title = 'Move embedding tests to their own test module'
updated_at = <Date 2017-11-27.22:12:15.292>
user = 'https://github.com/ncoghlan'

    bugs.python.org fields:

    activity = <Date 2017-11-27.22:12:15.292>
actor = 'ncoghlan'
assignee = 'none'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2017-11-27.22:12:15.292>
closer = 'ncoghlan'
components = ['Tests']
creation = <Date 2017-11-26.04:37:15.680>
creator = 'ncoghlan'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 32136
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 6.0
messages = ['306988', '306990', '306996', '307003', '307045', '307098']
nosy_count = 4.0
nosy_names = ['ncoghlan', 'vstinner', 'eric.snow', 'steve.dower']
pr_nums = ['4567']
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'fixed'
stage = 'resolved'
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue32136'
versions = ['Python 3.7', 'Python 3.8']
    @ncoghlan
    Copy link
    Contributor Author

    We currently run the runtime embedding tests as a subsection of "test_capi".

    I'm thinking it may make more sense to clearly separate them out as their own CPython-only test file, "test_runtime_embedding".

    I'm also thinking we should add a new "Runtime embedding" entry to the experts index, with myself, Victor Stinner, Eric Snow, and Steve Dower as the initial members.

    @ncoghlan ncoghlan added 3.7 (EOL) end of life 3.8 only security fixes tests Tests in the Lib/test dir type-feature A feature request or enhancement labels Nov 26, 2017
    @ncoghlan
    Copy link
    Contributor Author

    As noted in https://bugs.python.org/issue32096#msg306989, it would also be good to ensure that the full traceback from a failed _testembed call is always visible when running in verbose mode.

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member

    What about a shorter name like test_embed?

    @ncoghlan
    Copy link
    Contributor Author

    I guess the shorted name would also better match the naming scheme used for the C API test module:

    Modules/_testcapi.c -> Lib/test/test_capi.py
    Progams/_testembed.c -> Lib/test/test_embed.py

    @vstinner
    Copy link
    Member

    Modules/_testcapi.c -> Lib/test/test_capi.py
    Progams/_testembed.c -> Lib/test/test_embed.py

    I like it :-)

    @ncoghlan
    Copy link
    Contributor Author

    New changeset 39f0bb5 by Nick Coghlan in branch 'master':
    bpo-32136: Separate embedding tests from C API tests (GH-4567)
    39f0bb5

    @ezio-melotti ezio-melotti transferred this issue from another repository Apr 10, 2022
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Assignees
    No one assigned
    Labels
    3.7 (EOL) end of life 3.8 only security fixes tests Tests in the Lib/test dir type-feature A feature request or enhancement
    Projects
    None yet
    Milestone
    No milestone
    Development

    No branches or pull requests
    2 participants
    @vstinner @ncoghlan