On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:50:26 -0400 Benji York <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Jonathan Lange <[email protected]> > wrote: > > However, the question that I now have is this: what benefit do we > > gain by insisting on security-proxied objects in the unit tests for > > our model code? > > If the model code doesn't operate on proxied objects in production, > then I can't see any benefit. > > The hard part is being sure. I just got my first FAILURE ec2 emails and I have to say that these warnings make it impossible to find the failing tests, and make the body of the email impossibly long. In my mind, that should be the only thing that shows in the body of the email, and you can put whatever other junk in the attachment. All I care about are the failing tests. Unless we have a clear complete plan for fixing these warnings, I suggest we back out this change. It's great that we get the nudging, but I also don't want to have to deal with this for months on end until the next Epic where we have some free-hack time to fix it. Cheers, Paul _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
