Message313699
Ok, Yury clarified a few points before I got my message submitted there, so some of my last message may be a bit misguided. In particular, the problems with just using `asyncio.run` are clearer to me now.
To give my answers to Yury's open questions:
- We should have an async setUpClass capability, one way or another.
- I would say event loop per class. If someone really needs event loop per method, they can create separate classes per method. It's ugly, but effective.
- We should have an async setUp capability. Maybe we could add a helper method to be called from setUp rather than adding a whole new asyncSetUp into the protocol? That eliminates the problem of which goes first. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2018-03-12 20:45:01 | zach.ware | set | recipients:
+ zach.ware, r.david.murray, njs, asvetlov, yselivanov, pdxjohnny, Petter S |
2018-03-12 20:45:01 | zach.ware | set | messageid: <1520887501.53.0.467229070634.issue32972@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2018-03-12 20:45:01 | zach.ware | link | issue32972 messages |
2018-03-12 20:45:01 | zach.ware | create | |
|