Naitree Zhu added the comment:
Hi guys, what's our consensus on this?
- raise an exception as a fix? or
- fallback to default `reason` as a new feature?
If we choose to explicitly make `reason` optional (I mean by documenting it as
such), shouldn't we also change `@skipIf` and `@
Naitree Zhu added the comment:
Ok, I see. Thank you.
--
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue34596>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsub
Naitree Zhu added the comment:
Hi @zach.ware, Just to make sure I'm getting this right (first time
contributing to cpython...)
Now I need to open 4 PRs at GitHub,
- 1 PR to master branch, with following changes: raise TypeError when `reason`
is not a string. (Include unit test.)
- 3 P
Naitree Zhu added the comment:
What would be a good default reason? How about the function name?
if isinstance(reason, types.FunctionType):
reason = reason.__name__
For example,
from unittest import TestCase, skip
class Test(TestCase):
@skip
def
Naitree Zhu added the comment:
Well, I personally can not think of any. I think `reason` should normally just
be string.
If that is ok, I'll be happy to submit a PR that restricts reason to be a
string.
--
___
Python tracker
&
New submission from Naitree Zhu :
When using @skip decorator, `reason` argument is required. But one could easily
overlook that and use it like so:
class SomeTest(TestCase):
@skip
def test_method(self):
# ...
The test actually passes when running with
