Message313454
| Author | Petter S |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Petter S, asvetlov, njs, pdxjohnny, r.david.murray, yselivanov, zach.ware |
| Date | 2018-03-08.19:04:00 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1520535840.94.0.467229070634.issue32972@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> 1. Do we need support for async versions of setUp, setUpClass, etc? In my opinion: yes. I completely agree. I would imagine many or most real-world tests requiring async setUp. There is also the question on how a custom loop etc. can be used in the unit test class. How about this: unittest.TestCase gets a very small refactor in which a overridable helper method is used to run the test method. This helper method can then be changed to run async methods in a subclass AsyncioTestCase (that probably should live in asyncio). Pull request 6005 contained such a helper method, but the async part could be implemented in the subclass instead. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2018-03-08 19:04:00 | Petter S | set | recipients: + Petter S, r.david.murray, njs, asvetlov, zach.ware, yselivanov, pdxjohnny |
| 2018-03-08 19:04:00 | Petter S | set | messageid: <1520535840.94.0.467229070634.issue32972@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2018-03-08 19:04:00 | Petter S | link | issue32972 messages |
| 2018-03-08 19:04:00 | Petter S | create | |