Message 62799 - Python tracker

➜

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	maltehelmert
Recipients	belopolsky, gvanrossum, maltehelmert, pitrou, rbp
Date	2008-02-23.19:33:00
SpamBayes Score	0.013616634
Marked as misclassified	No
Message-id	<1203795181.1.0.72352046862.issue1040026@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to

Content
Attaching a new test (test_posix2.PATCH) that doesn't fork and fixes the problem with the previous test not taking previously elapsed time into account. This supersedes test_posix.PATCH. I left the wait time at 0.1; if we stay within the same process, this should be large enough. A busy wait loop for 0.1 seconds should easily get the 5% precision required by the assertAlmostEqual.

Attaching a new test (test_posix2.PATCH) that doesn't fork and fixes the
problem with the previous test not taking previously elapsed time into
account. This supersedes test_posix.PATCH.

I left the wait time at 0.1; if we stay within the same process, this
should be large enough. A busy wait loop for 0.1 seconds should easily
get the 5% precision required by the assertAlmostEqual.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2008-02-23 19:33:01	maltehelmert	set	spambayes_score: 0.0136166 -> 0.013616634 recipients: + maltehelmert, gvanrossum, belopolsky, pitrou, rbp
2008-02-23 19:33:01	maltehelmert	set	spambayes_score: 0.0136166 -> 0.0136166 messageid: <1203795181.1.0.72352046862.issue1040026@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2008-02-23 19:33:00	maltehelmert	link	issue1040026 messages
2008-02-23 19:33:00	maltehelmert	create