Tal Einat <talei...@gmail.com> added the comment:
>> ISTM that the coverage tests as currently written aren't good tests. > Hi, I'd like to remind everyone to be open, respectful, and considerate. > There are ways to describe hos things that can be improved. There is no need > to denigrate other people's work. I find this to be an overreaction in this case. Sure, it could have been worded more positively, but the negativity was very mild; the tests weren't even being called "bad", not to mention overly negative wording e.g. "horrible". Further, you omitted the followup explanation of *what about the tests isn't good*: > Otherwise, the tests are relying on a non-guaranteed implementation detail. IMO we shouldn't require ourselves to be overly careful in our wording, such as avoiding any negative wording entirely. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue34160> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
