This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author rbcollins
Recipients berker.peksag, bignose, brett.cannon, carljm, erik.bray, fov, kevinbenton, kushal.das, michael.foord, poke, rbcollins, ztane
Date 2015-07-28.22:02:24
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1438120945.22.0.637867100696.issue24651@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I don't mind if this is open or closed: we've now got a clear set of requirements *should* someone want to work on it::

 - it would feel as convenient to use as the current API does

 - it would be possible to be both forward and backwards compatible with the existing API indefinitely: There are lots of users of mock, and offering a [presumably] improved API is not worth turning all that code into an instant sea-anchor: if we're going to change this, we need to do so in a -very- graceful fashion, because unlike e.g. the mock_open things that only affect some users of mock, this would (if done poorly) break every user ever.


I think its possible to deliver that systematically across the API (not just the asserts - the whole thing) - but its nontrivial.
History
Date User Action Args
2015-07-28 22:02:25rbcollinssetrecipients: + rbcollins, brett.cannon, carljm, michael.foord, poke, bignose, erik.bray, berker.peksag, kushal.das, ztane, fov, kevinbenton
2015-07-28 22:02:25rbcollinssetmessageid: <1438120945.22.0.637867100696.issue24651@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2015-07-28 22:02:25rbcollinslinkissue24651 messages
2015-07-28 22:02:24rbcollinscreate