On Saturday 05 February 2011 01:46 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:54 PM, C. Michael Pilato<cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>> On 02/04/2011 02:09 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:15, Hyrum K Wright<hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> We currently mark tests XFail (or Skip, or something else) by wrapping
>>>> them in the test_list in the test suite. Rather than doing it there,
>>>> I think it makes more sense to use Python's decorator syntax to mark
>>>> tests as XFail right at their definition, rather than down in the test
>>>> list. Keeping all attributes of a test in close proximity is a Good
>>>> Thing, imo. Attached is a patch which demonstrates this.
>>> Sure.
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> +++ subversion/tests/cmdline/basic_tests.py (working copy)
>>> XFail = svntest.testcase.xfail_deco
>>>
>>>> @@ -1961,6 +1961,7 @@
>>>> expected_status)
>>>>
>>>> # Test for issue #1199
>>>> +@svntest.testcase.xfail_deco
>>> @XFail
>> Oh yes. Much, much nicer to read.
> Pilot committed in r1067273. That rev only changes basic_tests.py; I
> plan to hit the others shortly.
>
> -Hyrum
I don't know much about Python decorators, but what if I have a test
that does two things (like XFail and SkipUnless), do we have two
decorators at the definition?
Regards,
Arwin Arni
Received on 2011-02-07 07:48:55 CET