Message274103
Is this for mocking out runtime dependencies that aren't available at test time? It seems like a good way of masking bugs! I'd be happier with a (or at least an option) to specify the imports that should be mocked. The use case should be mentioned in the docs.
I think the name is slightly confusing. I originally thought this was a function to mock specific imports - not to catch failed imports. mock_missing_import (or similar) would be a better name.
It's common with the mock functions to be able to provide a class to use as the mock function, and to take arbitrary keyword arguments to pass to the mock constructor. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2016-09-01 08:51:43 | michael.foord | set | recipients:
+ michael.foord, Eyal Posener |
2016-09-01 08:51:43 | michael.foord | set | messageid: <1472719903.1.0.520157732622.issue27376@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2016-09-01 08:51:43 | michael.foord | link | issue27376 messages |
2016-09-01 08:51:42 | michael.foord | create | |
|