Author zach.ware
Recipients Petter S, asvetlov, njs, pdxjohnny, r.david.murray, yselivanov, zach.ware
Date 2018-03-12.20:45:01
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1520887501.53.0.467229070634.issue32972@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
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.
History
Date User Action Args
2018-03-12 20:45:01zach.waresetrecipients: + zach.ware, r.david.murray, njs, asvetlov, yselivanov, pdxjohnny, Petter S
2018-03-12 20:45:01zach.waresetmessageid: <1520887501.53.0.467229070634.issue32972@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2018-03-12 20:45:01zach.warelinkissue32972 messages
2018-03-12 20:45:01zach.warecreate