On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 4:03 PM Tim Golden <m...@timgolden.me.uk> wrote:
> On 14/02/2019 14:56, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:25 PM Eric Snow <ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com > > <mailto:ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 02:47 Ronald Oussoren via Python-Dev > > <python-dev@python.org <mailto:python-dev@python.org> wrote: > > > > > > I usually use shutil.rmtree for tests that need to create > > temporary files, and create a temporary directory for those > > files (that is, use tempfile.mkdtemp in setUp() and use > > shutil.rmtree in tearDown()). That way I don’t have to adjust > > house-keeping code when I make changes to test code. > > > > > > Same here. > > > > -eric > > > > > > What I generally do is avoid relying on tempfile.mkdtemp() and always > > use TESTFN instead. I think it's cleaner as a pradigm because it's an > > incentive to not pollute the single unit tests with `self.addCleanup()` > > instructions (the whole cleanup logic is always supposed to occur in > > setUp/tearDown): > > Must chime in here because I've been pushing (variously months & years > ago) to move *away* from TESTFN because it generates numerous > intermittent errors on my Windows setup. I've had several goes at > starting to do that but a combination of my own lack of time plus some > people's reluctance to go that route altogether has stalled the thing. > > I'm not sure I understand the difference in cleanup/teardown terms > between using tempfile and using TESTFN. The objections I've seen from > people (apart, obviously, from test churn) are to do with building up > testing temp artefacts on a possibly low-sized disk. > > TJG > I suppose you mean the intermittent failures are usually due to "file is already in use by another process" correct? test.support's unlink(), rmdir() and rmtree() functions already implement a retry-with-timeout logic in order to prevent this issue. I suppose when this issue may still occur, though, is when the file/handle is held by another process, meaning that the unit-test probably forgot to terminate()/wait() a subprocess or should have used support.read_children(). In summary, my approach is more "strict" because it implies that unit-tests always do a proper cleanup. tempfile.mkdtemp() may prevent failures but it may hide a unit-test which doesn't do a proper file/dir cleanup and should have been fixed instead. The drawback in practical terms is that orphaned test files are left behind. Extra: an argument in favor of using tempfile.mkdtemp() instead of TESTFN is parallel testing, but I think we're not using it. -- Giampaolo - http://grodola.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
