On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 13:19 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
I think pointing out that the default failure
message for testtools.TestCase.assertEqual() uses the terms
reference
(expected) and actual is a reason why reviewers *should* ask patch
submitters to use (expected, actual) ordering.
Is
On 11/26/2014 06:20 AM, Nicolas Trangez wrote:
On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 13:19 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
I think pointing out that the default failure
message for testtools.TestCase.assertEqual() uses the terms
reference
(expected) and actual is a reason why reviewers *should* ask patch
submitters to
On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 08:54 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 11/26/2014 06:20 AM, Nicolas Trangez wrote:
On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 13:19 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
I think pointing out that the default failure
message for testtools.TestCase.assertEqual() uses the terms
reference
(expected) and
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 08:54:35AM -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
It's not about an equality condition.
It's about the message that is produced by testtools.TestCase.assertEqual(),
and the helpfulness of that message when the order of the arguments is
reversed.
This is especially true with large
On 11/26/2014 09:28 AM, Nicolas Trangez wrote:
On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 08:54 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 11/26/2014 06:20 AM, Nicolas Trangez wrote:
On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 13:19 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
I think pointing out that the default failure
message for testtools.TestCase.assertEqual() uses
On 11/26/2014 07:54 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 11/26/2014 06:20 AM, Nicolas Trangez wrote:
On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 13:19 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
I think pointing out that the default failure
message for testtools.TestCase.assertEqual() uses the terms
reference
(expected) and actual is a reason
On 26/11/14 09:33, Louis Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 08:54:35AM -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
It's not about an equality condition.
It's about the message that is produced by testtools.TestCase.assertEqual(),
and the helpfulness of that message when the order of the arguments is
reversed.
, November 21, 2014 5:57:14 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Proposal new hacking rules
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 02:00:11PM -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui
sahid.ferdja...@redhat.com wrote:
This is something we can call
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 05:23:28PM -0500, Matthew Treinish wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 04:15:07PM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
On 11/21/2014 01:52 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 07:15:49PM +0100, jordan pittier wrote:
Hey,
I am not a Nova developer but I still have
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:30:59AM -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui
sahid.ferdja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 02:00:11PM -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui
1/ assertFalse() vs assertEqual(x, False) - these are semantically
different because of python's notion of truthiness, so I don't think
we ought to make this a rule.
2/ expected/actual - incorrect failure messages have cost me more time
than I should admit to. I don't see any reason not to try to
Matthew Gilliard said on Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:50:08PM +:
1/ assertFalse() vs assertEqual(x, False) - these are semantically
different because of python's notion of truthiness, so I don't think
we ought to make this a rule.
2/ expected/actual - I don't see any reason not to try to
On 11/24/2014 08:50 AM, Matthew Gilliard wrote:
1/ assertFalse() vs assertEqual(x, False) - these are semantically
different because of python's notion of truthiness, so I don't think
we ought to make this a rule.
2/ expected/actual - incorrect failure messages have cost me more time
than I
On 11/24/2014 09:40 AM, Ben Nemec wrote:
On 11/24/2014 08:50 AM, Matthew Gilliard wrote:
1/ assertFalse() vs assertEqual(x, False) - these are semantically
different because of python's notion of truthiness, so I don't think
we ought to make this a rule.
2/ expected/actual - incorrect failure
On 11/24/2014 01:02 PM, pcrews wrote:
On 11/24/2014 09:40 AM, Ben Nemec wrote:
On 11/24/2014 08:50 AM, Matthew Gilliard wrote:
1/ assertFalse() vs assertEqual(x, False) - these are semantically
different because of python's notion of truthiness, so I don't think
we ought to make this a rule.
Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 5:23:28 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Proposal new hacking rules
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 04:15:07PM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
On 11/21/2014 01:52 PM, Matthew Treinish
questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 5:23:28 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Proposal new hacking rules
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 04:15:07PM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
On 11/21/2014 01:52 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 07:15
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 02:00:11PM -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui
sahid.ferdja...@redhat.com wrote:
This is something we can call nitpiking or low priority.
This all seems like nitpicking for very little value. I think there are
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui
sahid.ferdja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 02:00:11PM -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui
sahid.ferdja...@redhat.com wrote:
This is something we can call nitpiking
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:30:59AM -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui
sahid.ferdja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 02:00:11PM -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui
On 11/21/2014 01:52 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 07:15:49PM +0100, jordan pittier wrote:
Hey,
I am not a Nova developer but I still have an opinion.
Using boolean assertions
I like what you propose. We should use and enforce the assert* that best
matches the
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 04:15:07PM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
On 11/21/2014 01:52 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 07:15:49PM +0100, jordan pittier wrote:
Hey,
I am not a Nova developer but I still have an opinion.
Using boolean assertions
I like what you propose. We
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui
sahid.ferdja...@redhat.com wrote:
This is something we can call nitpiking or low priority.
This all seems like nitpicking for very little value. I think there are
better things we can be focusing on instead of thinking of new ways to
23 matches
Mail list logo
