➜

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 methane
Recipients berker.peksag, docs@python, eric.araujo, kushal.das, methane, michael.foord, rbcollins, serhiy.storchaka, xtreak, ztane
Date 2019-05-22.10:00:21
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1558519221.59.0.612599342535.issue24653@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content 
> I opened the bug because we have evidence that users find the current documentation confusing. Saying that its not confusing to us doesn't fix the confusion.

Is there evidence people get confused by the document?

I suppose people get confused because they guessed behavior from existing assert_has_calls usages, without reading docs.
If they guess without reading doc, adding anything in doc doesn't help them.

The document describe well it tests inclusion, not equality.  There are no confusion about it.
History
Date User Action Args
2019-05-22 10:00:21methanesetrecipients: + methane, rbcollins, eric.araujo, michael.foord, docs@python, berker.peksag, serhiy.storchaka, kushal.das, ztane, xtreak
2019-05-22 10:00:21methanesetmessageid: <1558519221.59.0.612599342535.issue24653@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2019-05-22 10:00:21methanelinkissue24653 messages
2019-05-22 10:00:21methanecreate