On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Sebastian Berg
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> should we try to set FutureWarnings to errors in dev tests? I am
> seriously annoyed by FutureWarnings getting lost all over for two
> reasons. First, it is hard to impossible to find even our own
Hi all,
should we try to set FutureWarnings to errors in dev tests? I am
seriously annoyed by FutureWarnings getting lost all over for two
reasons. First, it is hard to impossible to find even our own errors
for our own FutureWarning changes. Secondly, we currently would not
even see any
Warnings filters can be given a regex matching the warning text, I think?
On Jan 21, 2016 5:00 PM, "Sebastian Berg"
wrote:
> On Do, 2016-01-21 at 16:51 -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Sebastian Berg
> >
On Do, 2016-01-21 at 16:15 -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Sebastian Berg
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > should we try to set FutureWarnings to errors in dev tests? I am
> > seriously annoyed by FutureWarnings getting lost all over for
On Do, 2016-01-21 at 17:07 -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Warnings filters can be given a regex matching the warning text, I
> think?
Doesn't cut it, because you need to set the warning to "always", so
then if you don't want to print it, you are stuck
I wrote a context manager + func
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Sebastian Berg
wrote:
> On Do, 2016-01-21 at 16:15 -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Sebastian Berg
>> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > should we try to set FutureWarnings to
On Do, 2016-01-21 at 16:51 -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Sebastian Berg
> wrote:
> > On Do, 2016-01-21 at 16:15 -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Sebastian Berg
> > >