Ethan Furman added the comment: CliffM added the comment: > > Sorry -- I could have been clearer : > > The conditional: > > if member.value == value: > > Is redundant as the tests stand. If you comment it out -- everything works. > So therefore we are missing a test.
Are you saying that you are commenting out the if test, but leaving in the return member? > This makes the if-clause fragile for future maintenance. So we need another > test to ensure the loop is covered. In case Python for loops suddenly stop working? Sorry to be so dense, but I am not understanding the point you are trying to make... ahhhhhh! Are trying to guard against the possibility that in the future someone might accidentally delete the if test, and the unit test won't catch it? That certainly is a good reason to test values further into the loop. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue19252> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
