-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Benji York wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com> wrote:
>> The fact that the test failed seems to make it less than sufficient. I
>> don't quite see how checking pystones is a useful measure, unless you
>> *know* that there is only CPU involved and that the machine where you
>> are checking it is effectively unloaded: I/O and scheduling latencies
>> aren't going to be magically subtracted.
> Is this a complaint about the test/documentation or the feature?
Primarily about the test failure, and therefore the way the test is written.
> If the test/documentation, I've already stated what should be done about
> it -- and I may do so at some point in the near future. In the
> meantime, adding another zero or five would decrease the chance of it
> failing again.
That wouldn't make the assertion any more useful either as a test (if
testing that the attribute is present and is an integer is all that is
wanted, then why not 'isinstance(browser.lastRequestPystones, int)'?)
or as documentation: what does 10,000 pystones mean? or 100,000?
> If the feature: it's certainly not perfect, but has been useful.
If the feature itself is valuable, then its documentation should give
the user some idea how to interpret the value.
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -