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 ezio.melotti
Recipients eric.araujo, ezio.melotti, michael.foord, vstinner
Date 2011-05-02.12:38:17
SpamBayes Score 4.2521542e-14
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1304339898.67.0.459891477613.issue11887@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> I think that the patch is simple (it adds 3 "with+simplefilter") and it
> doesn't add "complexity", or you should define what complexity is :-)

The patch is indeed quite simple. but with it half of the code in _baseAssertEqual will be to deal with warnings for this corner case.

> Buildbots use "make buildbottest" which run python with -bb

Yes, but "make buildbottest" is used just by the buildbots afaik.

> No. You have usually more failures with -bb than without any -b flag.
> Not in test itself, but in a function called by the test.

That's what I meant, the tests will still work with -bb and the failures will be elsewhere (i.e. the patch won't change anything here).

> A test may only fail with -bb.

If the failure is in the test, I would say that the test is probably wrong (see e.g. the assertNotEqual example in my previous message), if the failure is elsewhere the patch won't change anything.

> Anyway, my problem is to be able to get more informations on a 
> failure in a buildbot. I cannot change (easily) -bb flags on the
> buildbots [...]

On this I agree (that's why I'm -0.5 and not -1), but as I said it's a very specific situation, and my gut feeling is that it might not be worth fixing it.
History
Date User Action Args
2011-05-02 12:38:18ezio.melottisetrecipients: + ezio.melotti, vstinner, eric.araujo, michael.foord
2011-05-02 12:38:18ezio.melottisetmessageid: <1304339898.67.0.459891477613.issue11887@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2011-05-02 12:38:17ezio.melottilinkissue11887 messages
2011-05-02 12:38:17ezio.melotticreate