Message168578
However #1 is the reason that is bug exists in the first place. The
designer of the test guessed wrong on the "magic value" for the
timeout. There will never be a correct timeout value as it varies
from machine to machine and from workload to workload on a given
machine. For any value that is picked, there exists a scenario where
it will fail.
#2 is certainly a viable work-around and it appears that other tests
(notably the test for fork/exec) do similar so it wouldn't be
unprecedented
#3 is really only useful if other tests need a "wait for process"
helper on Windows.
#4 really just highlights a deficiency with os.startfile() so I'm fine
with deferring that to a feature request for 3.4.
I'll cook up a patch implementing #2 unless anyone else is feeling ambitious. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2012-08-19 15:26:22 | jeremy.kloth | set | recipients:
+ jeremy.kloth, georg.brandl, ncoghlan, pitrou, chris.jerdonek, sbt |
2012-08-19 15:26:20 | jeremy.kloth | link | issue15526 messages |
2012-08-19 15:26:20 | jeremy.kloth | create | |
|