On 4/12/07, Gary S. Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Edward d'Auvergne wrote: >
> >I think that the > >ExtendedException class would be better served with a RelaxError. The > >class could be moved into the 'relax_errors' module and the > >'***WARNING:' part of the string dropped. This would bring the > >exception into the standard relax system without affecting the unit > >test runner. Gary, what do you think of the idea? > > > > > > > I am not so keen for several reasons. > 1. This will add a dependency on relax and currently the whole > unit_test_runner framework is competely indepdendent of relax, except > for the names of directories in search paths etc > > cf lines 61-64 of unit_test_runner > > import os,re,unittest,string,sys > from optparse import OptionParser > from textwrap import dedent > from copy import copy >From the point of view of independence, it makes sense to keep it separate. > 2. this exception does actually get thrown, it is a true exception > within the spirit of the junit framework and not a warning I was aware of this. > 3. this is an error not a warning! The part of the message with > 'warning' after it is the result of the real exception which is the > syntax exception Wouldn't the text '***WARNING' be partly confusing to the person who receives the message? Would they think it is a warning or an error/exception? Wouldn't the text 'UnitTestRunnerError: ' or something like that be better for communicating that an error occurred? Regards, Edward _______________________________________________ relax (http://nmr-relax.com) This is the relax-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, visit the list information page at https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/relax-devel
