On 7 syys, 01:21, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> On 7 syys, 00:35, Andrew Godwin wrote:
>
> > That's an incredible speedup - I've had a quick look over the patch, and it
> > looks to be doing all the right things, so I'd definitely be behind merging
> >
On 7 syys, 01:10, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> Well that is pretty damn awesome. It also doesn't fix my problem.
> Let's ignore my problem for now, though. I'd like to look at the
> diffs. I doubt this is the real
>
On 7 syys, 00:35, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> That's an incredible speedup - I've had a quick look over the patch, and it
> looks to be doing all the right things, so I'd definitely be behind merging
> this in. Have you tried running the test runner over some third-party apps'
>
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> What's the base branch for the fast_tests_merged comparison?
https://github.com/akaariai/django/compare/django:master...fast_tests_merged
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen
wrote:
> On 3 syys, 07:40, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
>> I would like to make the TransactionTestCase faster. Currently when
>> running Django's test suite, for every test ran you will truncate
>>
That's an incredible speedup - I've had a quick look over the patch, and it
looks to be doing all the right things, so I'd definitely be behind merging
this in. Have you tried running the test runner over some third-party apps'
tests to make sure it works? I suspect South's/migrations' might get
On 6 syys, 19:17, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> I now have a pretty good WIP approach of tracking changes in testing.
> The changes can be found from here: [https://github.com/akaariai/
> django/tree/fast_tests_merged]. The approach relies on existing
> signals + a new
On 3 syys, 07:40, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> I would like to make the TransactionTestCase faster. Currently when
> running Django's test suite, for every test ran you will truncate
> around 1000 tables, then create around 4000 objects (permissions +
> content types).
On 3 syys, 03:17, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> I have been working on a master/slave router library [1] and have run
> into some trouble testing a client application of it.
>
> The issue is that TestCase (as designed) holds test db writes in a
> transaction, but the read slave
I have been working on a master/slave router library [1] and have run
into some trouble testing a client application of it.
The issue is that TestCase (as designed) holds test db writes in a
transaction, but the read slave connection (which is to the same DB
under TEST_MIRROR) does not have
10 matches
Mail list logo