Author chris.jerdonek
Recipients Arfrever, Julian, Yaroslav.Halchenko, abingham, bfroehle, borja.ruiz, brett.cannon, brian.curtin, chris.jerdonek, eric.araujo, eric.snow, exarkun, ezio.melotti, flox, fperez, hpk, michael.foord, nchauvat, ncoghlan, pitrou, r.david.murray, santoso.wijaya, serhiy.storchaka, spiv
Date 2013-02-11.01:12:57
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1360545177.78.0.296424769498.issue16997@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I'm still opposed to exposing these features only together.  Annotating the failure message with parametrization data is useful in its own right, but what if there are 500 subtests in a loop and you don't want 500 failures to be registered for that test case?  This is related to Ezio's comment near the top about adding too much noise.

addMessage was just one suggestion.  A different, functionally equivalent suggestion would be to add a "failFast" (default: False) keyword parameter to subTest() or alternatively a "maxFailures" (default: None) keyword parameter.
History
Date User Action Args
2013-02-11 01:12:57chris.jerdoneksetrecipients: + chris.jerdonek, brett.cannon, spiv, exarkun, ncoghlan, pitrou, ezio.melotti, eric.araujo, Arfrever, r.david.murray, michael.foord, brian.curtin, hpk, flox, fperez, Yaroslav.Halchenko, santoso.wijaya, nchauvat, Julian, abingham, eric.snow, serhiy.storchaka, borja.ruiz, bfroehle
2013-02-11 01:12:57chris.jerdoneksetmessageid: <1360545177.78.0.296424769498.issue16997@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2013-02-11 01:12:57chris.jerdoneklinkissue16997 messages
2013-02-11 01:12:57chris.jerdonekcreate