Calvin Spealman schrieb: > On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Right. It shouldn't fail if the file is absent (it shouldn't >> pass in that case, either, but regrtest has no support for INCONCLUSIVE >> test outcomes). > > Perhaps that could become part of the improvements made through > test.test_support.TestCase?
Sure. I think this is PEP material - I would like to declare "expected failure" as well. > Very true, but maybe more tests could have the more descriptive names, > then. For example, I would have known what it meant if the test name > prefix was test_sf_ instead of just test_. Changing the names > shouldn't interfere with anything else, so if I rename them in an > effort to help the next guy, would that be accepted? That would be fine (of course, we move away from SF, so these method names, at some point, will trigger synapses only for old-timers that still remember sourceforge; the bug IDs will remain constant in the next tracker). > Now that I have the full picture, I have less motivation about it. > Although, I am curious what is different about the situation where > pagefile.sys could not be stat'ed in 2.5.0 but other open files could. The error Windows reports is ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION. I never understood sharing fully, but it may be that if the file is opened in "exclusive sharing", stat'ing it may fail. I personally consider it a bug in Windows that you cannot get file attributes if some other process has opened it. Exclusive access should only restrict access to file contents, but not file attributes. 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
