On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 20:12:33 +0200 Serhiy Storchaka <storch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I wrote a large patch which modifies the tests to use more specific > methods [1]. Because it is too large, it was divided into many smaller > patches, and separate issues were opened for them. At the moment the > major part of the original patch has already been committed. Many thanks > to Ezio for making a review for the majority of the issues. Some changes > have been made by other people in unrelated issues. > > 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?
When it comes specifically to test_bigmem, it is important for error messages to be informative, because the failures may be hard (if not enough RAM) or very long to diagnose on a developer's machine. So +1 to changing test_bigmem. As for the rest of the test suite, I find the "assertSpecific" form more readable that "assertTrue(... with some operator)". But I may be in a minority here :-) As for the "code churn" argument, I find that a much less important concern for the test suite than for the rest of the code. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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
