Message180839
| Author | ncoghlan |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Arfrever, Julian, Yaroslav.Halchenko, abingham, bfroehle, borja.ruiz, brett.cannon, brian.curtin, chris.jerdonek, eric.araujo, eric.snow, exarkun, ezio.melotti, fperez, hpk, michael.foord, nchauvat, ncoghlan, pitrou, r.david.murray, santoso.wijaya, serhiy.storchaka, spiv |
| Date | 2013-01-28.08:47:07 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1359362827.9.0.743077181396.issue16997@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Right, if you want independently addressable/runnable, then you're back to parameterised tests as discussed in issue7897. What I like about Antoine's subtest idea is that I think it can be used to split the execution/reporting part of parameterised testing from the addressing/selection part. That is, while *this* patch doesn't make subtests addressable, a future enhancement or third party test runner could likely do so. (It wouldn't work with arbitrary subtests, it would only be for data driven variants like those described in issue7897) |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2013-01-28 08:47:07 | ncoghlan | set | recipients: + ncoghlan, brett.cannon, spiv, exarkun, pitrou, ezio.melotti, eric.araujo, Arfrever, r.david.murray, michael.foord, brian.curtin, hpk, fperez, chris.jerdonek, Yaroslav.Halchenko, santoso.wijaya, nchauvat, Julian, abingham, eric.snow, serhiy.storchaka, borja.ruiz, bfroehle |
| 2013-01-28 08:47:07 | ncoghlan | set | messageid: <1359362827.9.0.743077181396.issue16997@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2013-01-28 08:47:07 | ncoghlan | link | issue16997 messages |
| 2013-01-28 08:47:07 | ncoghlan | create | |