On Sunday 22 September 2013 22:55:15 Aymeric Augustin wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On 22 sept. 2013, at 22:48, Michael Manfre <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Aymeric Augustin > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The extra queries for the savepoints will break all tests that use > > assertNumQueries — well, all except assertNumQueries(0). How do you > > propose to deal with that. > > > > When changes are made to Django in such a way that existing tests no > > longer accurately test the expected behavior, I propose that the tests > > are fixed. > > > > I'd argue that many of the tests that use assertNumQueries are poorly > > written and should be viewed as already broken. This opinion is based > > upon my efforts of making django-mssql pass the test suite. > > Yes, I agree with that as far as Django's own test suite is concerned. > > I was more worried about our end users' test suites. >
If this is agreed, then we should add an assertNoQueries, deprecate the existing assertNumQueries, and add a new assertNumQueries that takes a backend specification, shouldn't we? This is regardless of what we do with @atomic. > Currently, if you don't use transactions, you can ignore the new transaction > management entirely. If all your assertNumQueries start failing, it's > another story. The code base I mentioned earlier relies mostly on TransactionMiddleware, but does have some explicit commit_on_success's etc. (it's Django 1.4 based, so no @atomic or anything like it). Shai. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
