homepage

I left a few comments on rietveld.
The patch should also include documentation.
> Class decorator approach looks less obvious to me. [...]
> But encountering the unittest.base_class decorator, I need to look in
> the documentation and/or sources to understand how it works.
I also agree that seeing @testBaseClass (the current name in the patch) gives very little indication of what's going on, but perhaps that could be fixed with a better name.
The two importants things are that the class is ignored/skipped, and that this doesn't propagate to the subclasses (as one might expect).
Would something like @ignoredBaseClass/@skippedBaseClass be better? Another options could be a more explicit @dontRunBaseClassTests, even though I don't particularly like the name.