On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Arwin Arni <arwin_at_collab.net> wrote:
> 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?
Just use them both. Order *shouldn't* matter. (I think.)
-Hyrum
Received on 2011-02-07 14:35:50 CET