Arwin Arni <arwin_at_collab.net> writes:
> On Saturday 05 February 2011 01:46 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:54 PM, C. Michael Pilato<cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>>> On 02/04/2011 02:09 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:15, Hyrum K Wright<hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> We currently mark tests XFail (or Skip, or something else) by wrapping
>>>>> them in the test_list in the test suite. Rather than doing it there,
>>>>> I think it makes more sense to use Python's decorator syntax to mark
>>>>> tests as XFail right at their definition, rather than down in the test
>>>>> list. Keeping all attributes of a test in close proximity is a Good
>>>>> Thing, imo. Attached is a patch which demonstrates this.
>>>> Sure.
>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>> +++ subversion/tests/cmdline/basic_tests.py (working copy)
>>>> XFail = svntest.testcase.xfail_deco
>>>>
>>>>> @@ -1961,6 +1961,7 @@
>>>>> expected_status)
>>>>>
>>>>> # Test for issue #1199
>>>>> +@svntest.testcase.xfail_deco
>>>> @XFail
>>> Oh yes. Much, much nicer to read.
>> Pilot committed in r1067273. That rev only changes basic_tests.py; I
>> plan to hit the others shortly.
>>
>> -Hyrum
> I don't know much about Python decorators, but what if I have a test
> that does two things (like XFail and SkipUnless), do we have two
> decorators at the definition?
>
I think he handled this in r1067380.
Thanks and Regards
Noorul
Received on 2011-02-07 08:14:04 CET