Author michael.foord
Recipients gregory.p.smith, michael.foord, pitrou, rbcollins, yaneurabeya
Date 2009-04-05.20:35:58
SpamBayes Score 1.9408e-08
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1238963760.5.0.575228492086.issue5679@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I'm in favour of running clean ups afterwards on the basis that it makes
things possible that would otherwise not be possible.

> If your cleanup relies on something which has been set up during setUp
> and will be dropped during tearDown (a database connection, a temp dir,
> an ssh session, whatever), then the cleanup must be run before the
> teardown.

But this is a function of whichever way we do it - and so not an
argument for one way or the other. Conversely if you write a tearDown
that relies on resources existing that will later be removed by a clean
up then clean ups must be run afterwards.

> 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.

Which is an argument in favour of running clean ups afterwards.
History
Date User Action Args
2009-04-05 20:36:00michael.foordsetrecipients: + michael.foord, gregory.p.smith, pitrou, rbcollins, yaneurabeya
2009-04-05 20:36:00michael.foordsetmessageid: <1238963760.5.0.575228492086.issue5679@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2009-04-05 20:35:59michael.foordlinkissue5679 messages
2009-04-05 20:35:58michael.foordcreate