Message244677
| Author | fov |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Claudiu.Popa, berker.peksag, fov, kevinbenton, lukasz.langa, michael.foord |
| Date | 2015-06-02.16:27:05 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1433262425.31.0.525646895913.issue23078@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Regarding Claudiu's comment about `staticmethod(x)` or `classmethod(x)` not being callable, would it suffice to add a specific check of the form `(isinstance(x, (classmethod, staticmethod)) and _callable(x.__func__))`? Separately, would it be better to include the check for `staticmethod` and `classmethod` objects (with an underlying callable) inside the `_callable` function? Not sure if this would break anything, but it seems like conceptually the issue is with the definition of a callable object, not the selection of mock type to use. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2015-06-02 16:27:05 | fov | set | recipients: + fov, michael.foord, Claudiu.Popa, lukasz.langa, berker.peksag, kevinbenton |
| 2015-06-02 16:27:05 | fov | set | messageid: <1433262425.31.0.525646895913.issue23078@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2015-06-02 16:27:05 | fov | link | issue23078 messages |
| 2015-06-02 16:27:05 | fov | create | |