Or maybe we should just code teardown so that if setup isn't called, we don't do teardown either. Lots of times I see people say "just include basesuite for X method" and since I don't need whatever its setup does, I don't call it in my setup I don't think that's a programmer error, per se.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 7:39 AM roger peppe <[email protected]> wrote: > It shouldn't be hard to write some code (using go/types) that > automatically checks > for these invariants. > > > On 15 July 2015 at 07:05, John Meinel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:44 AM, Bogdan Teleaga > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hello everybody, > >> > >> Lately I've been noticing a couple of failures regarding a new testing > >> feature introduced on windows. > >> > >> Without going into implementation details too deep the main idea is that > >> whenever a new suite is created > >> that inherits from a base suite and a SetUpX function is defined, it > needs > >> to call the SetUpX function of the > >> base suite. The main reason would be that if that's not done we will not > >> do set up for any test, but we will do > >> a tear down. To some extent it might be worth it to add some annotations > >> to the failure message, since it might > >> come up more often and it is not immideately obvious why. > > > > > > That's certainly an expectation of any sort of function that a type > > overloads from an embedded type. If people are overriding SetUp and not > > calling the embedded SetUp that's going to cause all sorts of bugs (we do > > test suite isolation, logging changes, HOME directory setup in base > types). > > I'm actually surprised that things worked if people are doing so. I guess > > some things like Isolation are things you don't notice until late, > because > > you end up with files littered where they shouldn't be. > > > > John > > =:-> > > > >> > >> > >> The bugs caused by this so far are: > >> - https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1474382 > >> - https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1471941 > >> > >> Another issue is that a recent bugfix stopped CentOS completely from > >> working. > >> The series could not be detected anymore because the map was changed > *and* > >> the test that > >> was using actual data from /etc/os-release was modified to mirror this > >> change. Until we get the CI > >> for CentOS up and running, but even as a general thing for that matter, > >> please consider the old > >> content of the tests and their intention before modyfing them to fit the > >> changes in the code. > >> > >> For more details on the CentOS bug: > >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1470150 > >> > >> And that would be all for now, I'll let you get back to the other > hundred > >> emails. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Bogdan > >> > >> -- > >> Juju-dev mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > >> > > > > > > -- > > Juju-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > > > > -- > Juju-dev mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev >
-- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
