On 4/13/06, Daniel Rall <dlr@collab.net> wrote:
> 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.
Agreed with you and Julian. I didn't investigate in commit content.
--
Ivan Zhakov
Received on Fri Apr 14 08:22:45 2006