Guido van Rossum wrote:
The Python test suite already has a way (the -u flag) to distinguish
between "regular" broad-coverage testing and deep coverage for
specific (or all) areas. Let's keep the really long-running tests out
of the regular test suite.
There used to be a farm of machines that did n
Guido van Rossum wrote:
[...]
There used to be a farm of machines that did nothing but run the test
suite ("snake-farm"). This seems to have stopped (it was run by
volunteers at a Swedish university). Maybe we should revive such an
effort, and make sure it runs with -u all.
I've changed the job tha
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I'd like to have your opinion on this bug. Personally, I'd prefer to keep
> > test_no_leaking as it is, but if you think otherwise...
> A suite of unit tests is a precious thing. We want to test as much as
> we can, and as thoroughly as possible; b
> I'd like to have your opinion on this bug. Personally, I'd prefer to keep
> test_no_leaking as it is, but if you think otherwise...
>
> One thing that actually can motivate that test_subprocess takes 20% of the
> overall time is that this test is a good generic Python stress test - this
> test m
Peter Astrand wrote:
I'd like to have your opinion on this bug. Personally, I'd prefer to keep
test_no_leaking as it is, but if you think otherwise...
One thing that actually can motivate that test_subprocess takes 20% of the
overall time is that this test is a good generic Python stress test - thi
I'd like to have your opinion on this bug. Personally, I'd prefer to keep
test_no_leaking as it is, but if you think otherwise...
One thing that actually can motivate that test_subprocess takes 20% of the
overall time is that this test is a good generic Python stress test - this
test might catch
