Message156983
| Author | r.david.murray |
|---|---|
| Recipients | anacrolix, eric.araujo, michael.foord, r.david.murray |
| Date | 2012-03-28.15:44:49 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1332949490.34.0.73394783725.issue14408@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Your presumption is probably correct, however if that is the premise of the patch it is incorrect in detail, since we've already fixed test_queue specifically to be runnable with -m unittest without adding a load_tests. I haven't looked at the other modules Matt is looking at, but it may well be that they can also be fixed without a load_tests. The test_queue fix is issue 14333, also opened by Matt, but fixed by Michele. I think we should make the tests runnable by unittest, but that we should use load_tests only if making discovery work for a particular test is too invasive. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2012-03-28 15:44:50 | r.david.murray | set | recipients: + r.david.murray, eric.araujo, michael.foord, anacrolix |
| 2012-03-28 15:44:50 | r.david.murray | set | messageid: <1332949490.34.0.73394783725.issue14408@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012-03-28 15:44:49 | r.david.murray | link | issue14408 messages |
| 2012-03-28 15:44:49 | r.david.murray | create | |