On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 05:19:28PM -0700, Brad Hall wrote:
> Link to CR: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~bhall/bug-2690/
Damned shame that class decorators aren't available until Python 2.6 --
this would be the perfect use for them.
Alternatively, you could use function decorators to decorate individual
tests that required a fresh depot. That could be extended at some point in
the future to have a decorator for tests that required (or didn't require)
a fresh image, too.
Or maybe all you need is a method that a test can call to re-initialize all
its depots?
Perhaps you considered these designs, I dunno. But if you did, please
explain why you decided against them.
> I added a variable to the classes to denote whether this should be
> enabled for a given class or not named 'static'. I couldn't think of a
> better name at the time so I'm open to suggestions if people think that's
> a bad name for this :)
I'll throw out "reuse_depot". Just reading through the webrev, "static" is
already getting really confusing.
testutils.py:
- line 552-558: I don't like leaving in commented-out code like this.
Either yank it entirely, or enhance the else to check to see if the
test is not "static".
pkg5unittest.py:
- line 49: Please refrain from using single-line if statements like this
- line 52-54: combine as
static = getattr(self, "static", False)
- line 57: Well, we do need to call it for the first one. You might add
to the comment saying that's done down in the testsuite class below.
And capitalize setUp() properly (on 228, too).
- line 83: space before colon
- line 216-218: use extended getattr() call as above.
- line 220: no need for parens around lvalue
- line 221, 236: do these need to be in try blocks as they are in
Pkg5TestCase.run()?
Thanks,
Danek
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
