Message217816
| Author |
rhettinger |
| Recipients |
asvetlov, ezio.melotti, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, terry.reedy |
| Date |
2014年05月03日.04:59:55 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1399093196.46.0.340638032634.issue20544@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
While this looks harmless, I seriously question whether it is an improvement.
For example, how is this any better?
- self.assertTrue(operator.setitem(a, 0, 2) is None)
+ self.assertIsNone(operator.setitem(a, 0, 2))
This error message for the first is already perfectly clear.
I don't see anything that warrants the code churn.
Also remember that changing tests is hazardous.
We don't have tests for the tests. So, if a test
gets damaged, we won't know about it. The particular
patch seems fine, but the whole exercise of going through
the test suite and altering the tests is a dubious. The
odds of us getting ANY value out of this is vanishingly small. |
|