Arwin Arni <ar...@collab.net> writes: > On Saturday 05 February 2011 01:46 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:54 PM, C. Michael Pilato<cmpil...@collab.net> >> wrote: >>> On 02/04/2011 02:09 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >>>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:15, Hyrum K Wright<hy...@hyrumwright.org> wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>> We currently mark tests XFail (or Skip, or something else) by wrapping >>>>> them in the test_list in the test suite. Rather than doing it there, >>>>> I think it makes more sense to use Python's decorator syntax to mark >>>>> tests as XFail right at their definition, rather than down in the test >>>>> list. Keeping all attributes of a test in close proximity is a Good >>>>> Thing, imo. Attached is a patch which demonstrates this. >>>> Sure. >>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> +++ subversion/tests/cmdline/basic_tests.py (working copy) >>>> XFail = svntest.testcase.xfail_deco >>>> >>>>> @@ -1961,6 +1961,7 @@ >>>>> expected_status) >>>>> >>>>> # Test for issue #1199 >>>>> +@svntest.testcase.xfail_deco >>>> @XFail >>> Oh yes. Much, much nicer to read. >> Pilot committed in r1067273. That rev only changes basic_tests.py; I >> plan to hit the others shortly. >> >> -Hyrum > I don't know much about Python decorators, but what if I have a test > that does two things (like XFail and SkipUnless), do we have two > decorators at the definition? >
I think he handled this in r1067380. Thanks and Regards Noorul
