Changes by Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com:
--
stage: - needs patch
type: - enhancement
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22813
___
Michael Foord added the comment:
The point is that it is easy to have unintentional dependencies between tests.
Test a sets up some state that test b relies on. This means that test b passes,
so long as test a has already run. This is bad, tests should be isolated - it
also means you can
sbspider added the comment:
Right makes sense. I'll see what I can do.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22813
___
___
sbspider added the comment:
And what do you think would it be useful for? I mean, it shouldn't be too hard
to implement, a couple of hours at most, but I can't seem to see what would be
the purpose. However, if you think that there is enough of a use case behind
it, then I would be happy to
New submission from Robert Collins:
Unittest doesn't support a test randomisation feature.
Such a feature should support:
- passing in a seed (to allow reproducing the order for debugging)
- preserving the suite hierarchy, to preserve class and module setUp
performance optimisations
- and
Changes by Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu:
--
nosy: +ezio.melotti, michael.foord
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22813
___
___
sbspider added the comment:
To clarify - are you querying about
a) Randomiser for tests, so that tests can have random variables
or
b) That the order in which tests are called should have the option to be
randomized
?
--
nosy: +sbspider
___
Robert Collins added the comment:
b)
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22813
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
