Message230005
| Author | ncoghlan |
|---|---|
| Recipients | hpk, michael.foord, ncoghlan, r.david.murray, rbcollins |
| Date | 2014-10-25.14:43:00 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1414248180.74.0.738664395626.issue10548@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
If you want the simple model, there's nothing to change (except perhaps documentation), as that's the way things work today. subtest support also makes it much easier to factor out common assertions without relying on the setUp/tearDown protocol, so I'd be OK with explicitly declaring having common assertions in those methods to be an abuse of the protocol. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2014-10-25 14:43:00 | ncoghlan | set | recipients: + ncoghlan, rbcollins, r.david.murray, michael.foord, hpk |
| 2014-10-25 14:43:00 | ncoghlan | set | messageid: <1414248180.74.0.738664395626.issue10548@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2014-10-25 14:43:00 | ncoghlan | link | issue10548 messages |
| 2014-10-25 14:43:00 | ncoghlan | create | |