On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 15:20, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >> So it isn't that it's "unexpected", it's that a dependency is missing. >> So it seems the terminology needs to get tweaked. > > More that the phrase "expected skip" isn't clearly defined and people > sometimes guess wrong as to what it means. As Martin pointed out, > there are two possible meanings: "will never work on this OS" and > "won't work with just the base OS install". Currently, the "expected > skip" list is based purely on the former, but developers occasionally > interpret it as the latter (as Bill did in this case). > > I will note that the first list is much easier to keep up to date, > since the latter may vary significantly based on vendor decisions as > to what they install by default (a fairly significant factor in the > Linux and *BSD worlds). > > Adding "(Were all optional modules built successfully?)" to the end of > the "skips were unexpected" line in the regrtest output may be enough > to eliminate the confusion.
Probably. So I would still want to shift the test-specific info into the tests instead of regrtest and raise a subclass od SkippedTest (or whatever the name of the exception is) to signify that there is a difference. This would also do away with the possibility of having a test get silently skipped by an ImportError even though the module should definitely be available (didn't that bite you once, or was that someone else?). _______________________________________________ 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
