Malcolm Tredinnick wrote: > One obvious test would have been to create a test directory that didn't > contain a models file but did contain a tests.py file. I would be wary of writing unittests that created stuff on people's filesystem.
> I think one reason the patch hasn't been applied is that it's in a > slightly tricky area of the code and it's not an urgent necessity. > Typing "touch models.py" to generate an empty models file is the current > workaround. It's not really a showstopper. Fair enough. This might be a good comment to add to the ticket, so that people like me don't bother the list :) > Right now, the patch makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. Maybe there's > another way to write it that is less intrusive. In any case, I'm > personally likely to leave it until after I know how #1796 will pan out > so as not to have to worry about retaining compatibility with yet > another feature in loading.py if I need to rewrite the internals. Once > we add something, removing it is very, very difficult. So we are > naturally cautious about adding it. Yeah it wasn't my patch. It makes me uncomfortable as well. Like I said, if wrote patch I wouldn't have added another feature, but rather make logic be "run the tests" instead of "run the tests only if there is a models.py". But, haven't deeply examined code/ramifications. Touching models.py is good enough solution in the meantime. thanks, njharman --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
