Author r.david.murray
Recipients lregebro, ncoghlan, r.david.murray
Date 2009-12-14.01:30:13
SpamBayes Score 1.04001e-07
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1260754216.48.0.863948803136.issue7490@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
My impression is that IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL is designed to allow you
to have a doctest as an example with a fully typed out exception detail,
but have it pass even if the exception detail changes.  If that is
indeed the original design, then I think your case 4 should pass.]

The one argument against it that I can see is the hypothetical case of
an x.y.Error passing when the code actually raised an a.b.Error when a
rename is *not* involved.  But that seems like a marginal enough case
that we could just ignore it.  Especially since having case 4 pass makes
the behavior of the modified IGNORE_EXCEPTION_DETAIL more consistent.
History
Date User Action Args
2009-12-14 01:30:17r.david.murraysetrecipients: + r.david.murray, ncoghlan, lregebro
2009-12-14 01:30:16r.david.murraysetmessageid: <1260754216.48.0.863948803136.issue7490@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2009-12-14 01:30:14r.david.murraylinkissue7490 messages
2009-12-14 01:30:13r.david.murraycreate