Message181866
| Author |
chris.jerdonek |
| Recipients |
Arfrever, Julian, Yaroslav.Halchenko, abingham, bfroehle, borja.ruiz, brett.cannon, brian.curtin, chris.jerdonek, eric.araujo, eric.snow, exarkun, ezio.melotti, flox, fperez, hpk, michael.foord, nchauvat, ncoghlan, pitrou, r.david.murray, santoso.wijaya, serhiy.storchaka, spiv |
| Date |
2013年02月11日.01:12:57 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1360545177.78.0.296424769498.issue16997@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
I'm still opposed to exposing these features only together. Annotating the failure message with parametrization data is useful in its own right, but what if there are 500 subtests in a loop and you don't want 500 failures to be registered for that test case? This is related to Ezio's comment near the top about adding too much noise.
addMessage was just one suggestion. A different, functionally equivalent suggestion would be to add a "failFast" (default: False) keyword parameter to subTest() or alternatively a "maxFailures" (default: None) keyword parameter. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2013年02月11日 01:12:57 | chris.jerdonek | set | recipients:
+ chris.jerdonek, brett.cannon, spiv, exarkun, ncoghlan, pitrou, ezio.melotti, eric.araujo, Arfrever, r.david.murray, michael.foord, brian.curtin, hpk, flox, fperez, Yaroslav.Halchenko, santoso.wijaya, nchauvat, Julian, abingham, eric.snow, serhiy.storchaka, borja.ruiz, bfroehle |
| 2013年02月11日 01:12:57 | chris.jerdonek | set | messageid: <1360545177.78.0.296424769498.issue16997@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2013年02月11日 01:12:57 | chris.jerdonek | link | issue16997 messages |
| 2013年02月11日 01:12:57 | chris.jerdonek | create |
|