On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Karen Tracey <kmtra...@gmail.com> wrote: > OK, so that sounds like one vote for leaving things as they are for > doctests, that is with no rolled-back transaction cleaning up after them.
Yeah, I agree. doctests are the 80% testing tool; if you need more control, that's what formal test cases are for. > Of the three #2 sounds most attractive to me, but I have no idea if it is > feasible. I also agree, and I *think* it ought to be possible by modifying the way the test runner is constructed during discovery. Failing that, I think keeping TestCase as it is in 1.0 and introducing a new FasterTestCase would be the better approach -- that way people have to opt-in to the new behavior, and can decide if the caveats are worth it. Jacob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
