[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython: Issue #19330: Handle the no-docstrings case in tests
Nick Coghlan
ncoghlan at gmail.com
Sat Oct 26 19:32:14 CEST 2013
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Sat Oct 26 19:32:14 CEST 2013
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython: Issue #19330: Handle the no-docstrings case in tests
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython: Issue #19330: Handle the no-docstrings case in tests
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 27 October 2013 01:10, Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka at gmail.com> wrote: > 26.10.13 15:50, Stefan Krah написав(ла): > >> nick.coghlan <python-checkins at python.org> wrote: >>> >>> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/a9bbc2d0c1dc >>> -HAVE_DOCSTRINGS = (check_impl_detail(cpython=False) or >>> - sys.platform == 'win32' or >>> - sysconfig.get_config_var('WITH_DOC_STRINGS')) >>> +# Rather than trying to enumerate all the cases where docstrings may be >>> +# disabled, we just check for that directly >>> + >>> +def _check_docstrings(): >>> + """Just used to check if docstrings are enabled""" >>> + >>> +HAVE_DOCSTRINGS = (_check_docstrings.__doc__ is not None) >>> >>> requires_docstrings = unittest.skipUnless(HAVE_DOCSTRINGS, >> >> >> I think that does not detect --without-doc-strings (i.e. the C docstrings >> are >> empty). > > > Indeed. HAVE_DOCSTRINGS was introduced to skip tests for the C docstrings. > Python docstrings tests are skipped if sys.flags.optimize >= 2. That's *extraordinarily* confusing, especially when Serhiy suggested I use the flag when testing a pure Python module. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython: Issue #19330: Handle the no-docstrings case in tests
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython: Issue #19330: Handle the no-docstrings case in tests
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list