Author pitrou
Recipients gregory.p.smith, michael.foord, pitrou, rbcollins, yaneurabeya
Date 2009-04-05.10:15:02
SpamBayes Score 4.12818e-08
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1238926585.6499.5.camel@fsol>
In-reply-to <1238906768.2700.373.camel@lifeless-64>
Content
> Our experience in bzr (we use this heavily, and migrated to it
> incrementally across our 17K fixture suite) is that we rarely need to
> use cleanups on dependent resources, and when we need to it has been
> very easy to migrate the dependent resource to use cleanups as well.

I'm baffled. If you say you don't care about the order, why are you
arguing at all?

[...]
> sequence 2: cleanup before teardown prevents using cleanups in base
> class setup methods

The point is that sequence 2 can already be emulated using careful
"try...finally" in tearDown, while sequence 1 cannot. That is, sequence
1 *needs* the addCleanup, while for sequence 2 it is a mere additional
convenience.
History
Date User Action Args
2009-04-05 10:15:04pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, gregory.p.smith, rbcollins, yaneurabeya, michael.foord
2009-04-05 10:15:03pitroulinkissue5679 messages
2009-04-05 10:15:02pitroucreate