Message371333
Thanks, Eryk. I've had a couple of casts at this (and also with an eye to https://bugs.python.org/issue40912 in a very similar area).
Trouble is I can't come up with a way of adding a set.. function which doesn't seem wholly artificial, given that it's basically creating an anonymous event and checking its return. I can't come up with a non-testing scenario where the ability to override would be useful.
If I understand your proposal, a tentative "set..." function would have to take a HANDLE parameter so that it could be overridden by a test? That means its normal use would be something like:
setSigintEvent(CreateEvent(NULL, ....));
so either the error checking for that would be inside the function, which feels weird, or would happen outside, which feels like the functions not doing anything. (I appreciate I may be overthinking here).
I'm very much open to suggestions here, but it seems to me that either:
We make the (simple) change without tests;
or we add a setSigintEvent function as above whose only purpose is to be overridden -- and then only for testing. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2020-06-12 05:41:43 | tim.golden | set | recipients:
+ tim.golden, paul.moore, zach.ware, eryksun, steve.dower |
2020-06-12 05:41:43 | tim.golden | set | messageid: <1591940503.74.0.265895171455.issue40913@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2020-06-12 05:41:43 | tim.golden | link | issue40913 messages |
2020-06-12 05:41:43 | tim.golden | create | |
|