[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

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

From: Madan U Sreenivasan <madan_at_collab.net>
Date: 2006-06-22 14:01:36 CEST

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:50:34 +0530, Madan U Sreenivasan <madan@collab.net>
wrote:

> 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.

Jelmer...?

Regards,
Madan.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jun 22 13:31:31 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.