In article <1392492250.26338.83831085.39a5e...@webmail.messagingengine.com>, Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014, at 10:12 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: > > Although Raymond approved a patch for test_bigmem [2], his expressed the > > insistent recommendation not to do this. So I stop committing new > > reviewed patches. Terry recommended to discuss this in Python-Dev. What > > are your thoughts? > I tend to agree with Raymond. I think such changes are very welcome when > the module or tests are otherwise being changed, but on their on > constitute unnecessary churn.
+1 Integrity of the test suite and minimizing code churn top any benefits of more specific messages on failures. The expectation is that most tests will never fail so their changed messages will never be seen. For the rare cases when a test does fail, quite often the test was written in a way that will require examination of the code to understand exactly what the test case was intending to test and why it failed. Having a more specific exception message wouldn't help for many tests without further modifications; the key point is to know that the test failed. -- Ned Deily, n...@acm.org _______________________________________________ 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
