Message296609
| Author |
vstinner |
| Recipients |
berker.peksag, ericvw, grzgrzgrz3, mariocj89, michael.foord, rbcollins, vstinner |
| Date |
2017年06月22日.00:09:25 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1498090165.64.0.312681359692.issue30541@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> I don't see what this buys over spec and autospec. I'd be inclined to close it without a compelling use case beyond what is already supported.
I proposed to Mario to open an issue since I like his API. Even if "sealing" mocks is unlikely to be the most common case, when you need it, I prefer his API over the specs thing which reminds me bad time with mox. I prefer the declarative Python-like API, rather than Mock(spec=["method2"], **{"method2.return_value": 1}).
But yeah, technically specs and sealing seems similar. It's just another way to describe a mock. Since I prefer sealing, I would like to allow users to choose between specs and sealing. |
|