This is my fault, I accidentally checked in the codec tests before
applying the fixes. I've disabled them for the moment.
I did create some more partitioning by adding them in the "tests"
directory rather than the "tests_0-8" or "tests_0-9" directories. I
modified the test-runner to run "tests" regardless of the version in
use. This isn't quite the same as the internal/protocol distinction
since there are probably useful protocol tests that are not version
specific. It would be easy enough to add something like an "internal"
directory to make it clear which failures are protocol related and which
aren't. I'd prefer still running all tests by default as the internal
tests are quite fast and should normally be a good sanity check as to
whether protocol failures indicate a broker issue or a python client issue.
--Rafael
Robert Godfrey wrote:
+1
I think there definitely needs to be a distinction between tests which
happen to be written in Python, which are testing the broker; and
tests which are testing the Python code.
-- Rob
On 31/05/07, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some excellent new unit tests have been added to the python code on
trunk. Not all of these pass at present.
Brokers using the python run-tests script to test themselves will pick
these new tests up and will report failures. One option is to add the
failures to the list of expected failures for each broker.
However as these new tests don't even open a connection to a broker, I
wondered whether it would be more sensible to start partitioning the
tests into unit tests for the python code itself and tests used to
verify broker behaviour. That then seemed worth raising as a question
for the group... thoughts?
