Message229207
| Author |
ezio.melotti |
| Recipients |
Julian, brett.cannon, chris.jerdonek, daniel.urban, eric.araujo, ezio.melotti, martin.panter, michael.foord, pablomouzo, parkouss, pitrou, r.david.murray, rbcollins |
| Date |
2014年10月13日.01:34:42 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1413164083.23.0.236903088204.issue11664@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
I'm -0.5 on this as well, and agree that we should try to keep the TestCase API small.
On one hand, a patch method available without extra imports would be handy, and having this as a generic function/method in unittest seems more natural to me than having it in unittest.mock. On the other hand, adding it to unittest has downsides as well: it increases API complexity, adds duplication and possibly confusion (people might wonder if they should use TestCase.patch or unittest.mock.patch, and if there are any differences). Adding both .patch and .patch_object makes things even worse. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2014年10月13日 01:34:43 | ezio.melotti | set | recipients:
+ ezio.melotti, brett.cannon, pitrou, rbcollins, eric.araujo, r.david.murray, michael.foord, pablomouzo, daniel.urban, chris.jerdonek, Julian, martin.panter, parkouss |
| 2014年10月13日 01:34:43 | ezio.melotti | set | messageid: <1413164083.23.0.236903088204.issue11664@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2014年10月13日 01:34:43 | ezio.melotti | link | issue11664 messages |
| 2014年10月13日 01:34:42 | ezio.melotti | create |
|