Message96598
| Author |
lekma |
| Recipients |
lekma, pitrou, r.david.murray |
| Date |
2009年12月19日.09:58:44 |
| SpamBayes Score |
2.9083524e-10 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1261216727.02.0.209577867471.issue7523@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> It would be better to use test skipping: (eg: @unittest.SkipUnless
> before the test class).
I didn't know about this feature, thanks for the tip.
Now I wonder if it would be better to do it this way:
@unittest.SkipUnless(hasattr(socket, "SOCK_CLOEXEC") and fcntl,
"SOCK_CLOEXEC not defined OR module fcntl not available")
or this way:
@unittest.SkipUnless(hasattr(socket, "SOCK_CLOEXEC"), "SOCK_CLOEXEC not
defined")
@unittest.SkipUnless(fcntl, "module fcntl not available")
the second option seems better to me (obvious reason why the test was
skipped), what do you guys think? (it doesn't really matter, I know, but
while we're here...) |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2009年12月19日 09:58:47 | lekma | set | recipients:
+ lekma, pitrou, r.david.murray |
| 2009年12月19日 09:58:47 | lekma | set | messageid: <1261216727.02.0.209577867471.issue7523@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2009年12月19日 09:58:45 | lekma | link | issue7523 messages |
| 2009年12月19日 09:58:44 | lekma | create |
|