Author pitrou
Recipients Arfrever, Julian, abingham, bfroehle, borja.ruiz, 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 2013-03-01.20:39:45
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1362170385.92.0.315022486524.issue16997@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> That means there's a part of Antoine's patch I disagree with: the
> change to eliminate the derived "overall" result attached to the
> aggregate test.

The patch doesn't eliminate it, there are even tests for it.
(see the various call order tests)

> The complexity involved in attempting to get expectedFailure() to
> behave as expected is also a strong indication that there are still
> problems with the way these results are being aggregated.

No, the complexity stems from the fact that the expectedFailure decorator knows nothing about the test running machinery and instead blindly raises an exception.
History
Date User Action Args
2013-03-01 20:39:46pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, spiv, exarkun, ncoghlan, ezio.melotti, eric.araujo, Arfrever, r.david.murray, michael.foord, hpk, flox, fperez, chris.jerdonek, santoso.wijaya, nchauvat, Julian, abingham, eric.snow, serhiy.storchaka, borja.ruiz, bfroehle
2013-03-01 20:39:45pitrousetmessageid: <1362170385.92.0.315022486524.issue16997@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2013-03-01 20:39:45pitroulinkissue16997 messages
2013-03-01 20:39:45pitroucreate