On 08/30/2017 06:35 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 08/30/2017 05:28 PM, John Snow wrote: > >> I'm a little iffy on this patch; I know that ./check can take care of >> our temp files for us now, but because each python test is itself a >> little mini-harness, I'm a little leery of moving the teardown to setup >> and trying to pre-clean the confetti before the test begins. >> >> What's the benefit? We still have to clean up these files per-test, but >> now it's slightly more error-prone and in a weird place. >> >> If we want to try to preserve the most-recent-failure-files, perhaps we >> can define a setting in the python test-runner that allows us to >> globally skip file cleanup. > > On the other hand, since each test is a mini-harness, globally skipping > cleanup will make a two-part test fail on the second because of garbage > left behind by the first. >
subtext was to have per-subtest files. > Patch 5 adds a comment with another possible solution: teach the python > mini-harness to either clean all files in the directory, or to relocate > the directory according to test name, so that each mini-test starts with > a fresh location, and cleanup is then handled by the harness rather than > spaghetti pre-cleanup. But any solution is better than our current > situation of nothing, so that's why I'm still okay with this patch as-is > as offering more (even if not perfect) than before. > I guess where I am unsure is really if this is better than what we currently do, which is to (try) to clean up after each test as best as we can. I don't see it as too different from trying to clean up before each test. It does give us the ability to leave behind a little detritus after a failed run, but it's so imperfect that I wonder if it's worth shifting this code around to change not much. I won't die on this hill, it just strikes me a slightly less intuitive use of the python unittest framework. --js
