>> 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?
If "for me" means "in 2.5.0", then yes: both the original test and the one you modified should have failed. > The original test failed, my new one does not. Then this change is incorrect: the test should fail in 2.5.0. > As for documentating the intent of these tests, I don't think > tracker items are visible enough. Hmm. Is it asked too much to go to python.org/sf/1686475 when editing a test case named 'test_1686475'? When researching the intent of some piece of code, you actually have more information available: the set of changes that was committed together (which would include a Misc/NEWS change, and the actual change to posixmodule.c), and the log message. > 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. Clearly, if you think some relevant information is missing in a comment, submit a patch to add that information. I was unable to add anything, because I did not know it was missing. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ 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