On 6/23/06, Paul Burba <paulb@softlanding.com> wrote:
> Ok, assuming I'm understanding you correctly(?) I looked at all the
> instances of "raise svntest.Failure" and found we actually do do one of
> the following some frequency:
>
> A) print 'some explanation of the error'
> raise svntest.Failure
>
> B) raise svntest.Failure('some explanation of the error')
>
> Regardless of what's been done, where is the harm in providing a bit more
> information to someone reading the log? Perhaps this doesn't matter in
> most circumstances since the tests usually pass and I doubt people spend
> much time pouring over the logs. But in my own experience porting
> Subversion to OS/400 I've read more logs than I care to remember; and
> tests that raised failures with no explanation made finding the underlying
> problem more difficult than necessary.
>
> Anyhow, I'm not married to the additional message, but I'd prefer it if
> there are no strong objections.
>
> FWIW I changed my patch to use approach B rather than A. I didn't realize
> svntest.Failure supported the message.
I hadn't realized we did things both ways. Personally, I prefer
version B, but that's just me. Thanks for fixing the other problems
though.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jun 23 19:27:34 2006