Message112419
| Author |
eli.bendersky |
| Recipients |
belopolsky, eli.bendersky, ezio.melotti, pitrou, terry.reedy |
| Date |
2010年08月02日.03:05:11 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.0014680158 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1280718315.79.0.0258877481471.issue9315@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
I understand you, Alexander, but this problem (as is the previous) **doesn't have anything to do with the fake module**.
It would happen even if I didn't have it. Why does it only strike this test, then? Because of my usage of __file__ to compare expected results with what trace.py gives. I believe this problem can be solved with fairly simple means, but replacing the fake module by a real module won't solve it.
The fake module was the least intrusive way I could think of to simulate stuff for trace.py - it's a scalable approach if I'll need more than one module in the future for some stress-testing. I haven't run into serious problems with this approach yet - the module is built dynamically, its attributes assigned as I need them, and that's all. Indistinguishable from a real module. This is what we love about Python's reflective properties :-) |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2010年08月02日 03:05:15 | eli.bendersky | set | recipients:
+ eli.bendersky, terry.reedy, belopolsky, pitrou, ezio.melotti |
| 2010年08月02日 03:05:15 | eli.bendersky | set | messageid: <1280718315.79.0.0258877481471.issue9315@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010年08月02日 03:05:13 | eli.bendersky | link | issue9315 messages |
| 2010年08月02日 03:05:11 | eli.bendersky | create |
|