Message217816
While this looks harmless, I seriously question whether it is an improvement.
For example, how is this any better?
- self.assertTrue(operator.setitem(a, 0, 2) is None)
+ self.assertIsNone(operator.setitem(a, 0, 2))
This error message for the first is already perfectly clear.
I don't see anything that warrants the code churn.
Also remember that changing tests is hazardous.
We don't have tests for the tests. So, if a test
gets damaged, we won't know about it. The particular
patch seems fine, but the whole exercise of going through
the test suite and altering the tests is a dubious. The
odds of us getting ANY value out of this is vanishingly small. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2014-05-03 04:59:56 | rhettinger | set | recipients:
+ rhettinger, terry.reedy, ezio.melotti, asvetlov, serhiy.storchaka |
2014-05-03 04:59:56 | rhettinger | set | messageid: <1399093196.46.0.340638032634.issue20544@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2014-05-03 04:59:56 | rhettinger | link | issue20544 messages |
2014-05-03 04:59:55 | rhettinger | create | |
|