On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Julian Foad wrote:
> Michael Haggerty wrote:
> >But if a test causes itself to be skipped (by raising an svntest.Skip
> >exception) then there wouldn't be much call for running it again, would
> >there? The sandboxes of tests that fail are *not* cleaned up, even
> >after this commit. (My guess was that the old behavior was an oversight
> >in the implementation of the skip behavior.)
>
> Agreed.
>
> >But I would certainly be happy to restore the old behavior if that is
> >what people want.
>
> No.
>
> >On a related point, if a test is explicitly marked Skip (by being listed
> >as Skip(test_name, 1)) then it seems superfluous to generate a sandbox
> >in the first place. (For tests that are skipped by throwing a Skip
> >exception, on the other hand, it is not so easy to avoid creating a
> >Sandbox.) So I was thinking of skipping sandbox creation for explicitly
> >Skipped tests. What do people think of that?
>
> +0: not a significant time saving, as all "Sandbox::__init__" does is set a
> few variables. The significant time taken to build a sandbox is in the
> "sandbox.build()" call within a test.
I concur with Julian's comments.
Avoiding creation of a Sandbox object would be nice if it can be
handled with a minimal amount of additional code.
--
Daniel Rall
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Thu Apr 13 21:25:46 2006