Author ezio.melotti
Recipients Julian, brett.cannon, chris.jerdonek, daniel.urban, eric.araujo, ezio.melotti, martin.panter, michael.foord, pablomouzo, parkouss, pitrou, r.david.murray, rbcollins
Date 2014-10-13.01:34:42
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1413164083.23.0.236903088204.issue11664@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I'm -0.5 on this as well, and agree that we should try to keep the TestCase API small.

On one hand, a patch method available without extra imports would be handy, and having this as a generic function/method in unittest seems more natural to me than having it in unittest.mock.  On the other hand, adding it to unittest has downsides as well: it increases API complexity, adds duplication and possibly confusion (people might wonder if they should use TestCase.patch or unittest.mock.patch, and if there are any differences).  Adding both .patch and .patch_object makes things even worse.
History
Date User Action Args
2014-10-13 01:34:43ezio.melottisetrecipients: + ezio.melotti, brett.cannon, pitrou, rbcollins, eric.araujo, r.david.murray, michael.foord, pablomouzo, daniel.urban, chris.jerdonek, Julian, martin.panter, parkouss
2014-10-13 01:34:43ezio.melottisetmessageid: <1413164083.23.0.236903088204.issue11664@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2014-10-13 01:34:43ezio.melottilinkissue11664 messages
2014-10-13 01:34:42ezio.melotticreate