Author gvanrossum
Recipients christian.heimes, felipecruz, giampaolo.rodola, gvanrossum, meador.inge, neologix, pitrou, rosslagerwall, sbt
Date 2013-08-03.04:21:36
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1375503696.67.0.390887159285.issue16853@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
No time for a full review yet, but a comment on the timeout test failure you are observing in Tulip.  This particular test schedules a task that sleeps for 20 msecs, and first calls run_until_complete() with a timeout of 10 msecs, and then calls it again without a timeout.  It checks that the first call takes approximately 10 msec and the second call too.  But for some reason it is okay if the first call takes quite a bit longer (up to 18 msec) and then the second check is wrong.

Can you try again with the failing assert replaced with this?

	self.assertTrue(0.018 <= t2-t0 <= 0.028, t2-t0)

That should be a better way to check that code works.
History
Date User Action Args
2013-08-03 04:21:36gvanrossumsetrecipients: + gvanrossum, pitrou, giampaolo.rodola, christian.heimes, meador.inge, neologix, rosslagerwall, sbt, felipecruz
2013-08-03 04:21:36gvanrossumsetmessageid: <1375503696.67.0.390887159285.issue16853@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2013-08-03 04:21:36gvanrossumlinkissue16853 messages
2013-08-03 04:21:36gvanrossumcreate