On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> As I said - I'm not convinced that is indeed correct. Before accepting > >> a replacement test I would like confirmation that this test will fail > >> on 2.5.0. You might not get ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION in all cases of > >> open files with 2.5.0. > > > > But i am running 2.5.0 during my entire writing of this patch. I've > > not upgraded my laptop to 2.5.1 yet, although I verified against > > another installation of 2.5.1 before publishing. > > And you saw your test pass? Then it is not a valid test case for the > bug being test, because the bug is present in 2.5.0, so your test > case should fail there.
I think I'm a little confused. Are you saying the original test should fail for me or that the test I changed it to should fail for me? The original test failed, my new one does not. As for documentating the intent of these tests, I don't think tracker items are visible enough. When I'm looking at the unittest itself, am I to always search the entire tracker for any bugs still relevent and pertaining to each test I look at? That seems contorted, and easy to miss. I'll check the tracker, and I'd like to add any information to the test itself. -- Read my blog! I depend on your acceptance of my opinion! I am interesting! http://ironfroggy-code.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
