Vinay Sajip <vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk> added the comment: > OK, but acceptance tests do not need to not try to get higher test coverage. >For instance, for testing disable() simply using it and making sure the >outcome >is as expected also works.
> > I can understand wanting to avoid some low-level whitebox testing, but I > don't >think that precludes getting better coverage results. Well then, it sounds like we're on the same page. I'm not arguing against better coverage, just against the low-level whitebox testing elements of Oliver's patch. He did welcome comments, after all :-) ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue11332> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
