Re: [PATCH] Improve test cases for svn.wc python bindings

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:38:01 +0530, Madan U Sreenivasan <madan@collab.net>
wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 15:25:35 +0530, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@samba.org>
> wrote:
[snip]
>> Looks good! Two small comments from a quick glance over your patch:
>> Why the assert_ -> failUnless change?
>
> IIUC, assert_ will cause and assertion and hence an error. failUnless
> will cause a failure (test failure)

No, I was wrong, assert_() and failUnless() effectively do the same. But I
still feel that the name `failUnless' makes more sense in a unit-test
scenario. What do you think?

>> I'm not sure whether adding tests that fail are a good idea - it makes
>> it harder to catch real regressions. Can you comment out the failing
>> ones and a TODO or send a fix along that fixes the actual bug?
>
> Good idea. Will do that, and send the patch again. Thanks. :)

Jelmer: I have this patch ready... will resend this patch, after getting
done, what you have to say about assert_() vs failUnless(). Hope this is
okay.

Regards,
Madan.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jun 19 10:50:20 2006