On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Ramiro Morales wrote:
>> I ran the full test suite on SQLite, and got this error:
>> ==
>> ERROR: test_pass_connection_between_threads
>> (regressiontests.backends.tests.ThreadTests)
>> ---
Anssi,
Thanks for the review,
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen
wrote:
>
> I spotted one error:
> https://github.com/ramiro/django/compare/pr45_t18271#L7R472 - The
> line should say conn.cursor(), not connection.cursor().
Fixed in the last iteration of the branch.
>
> I ran t
On 10 heinä, 00:35, Ramiro Morales wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen
>
> wrote:
>
> > I would like to just get rid of the sequence resets. Oracle doesn't do
> > it currently, TestCase doesn't do it, and IMO assuming the IDs are
> > going to start from 1 is an assumption on
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen
wrote:
>
> I would like to just get rid of the sequence resets. Oracle doesn't do
> it currently, TestCase doesn't do it, and IMO assuming the IDs are
> going to start from 1 is an assumption one should not make.
>
> Objections to just getting rid o
On 8 May 2012 14:22, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen
> wrote:
>>
>> I would like to just get rid of the sequence resets. Oracle doesn't do
>> it currently, TestCase doesn't do it, and IMO assuming the IDs are
>> going to start from 1 is an assumption one sho
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> I would like to just get rid of the sequence resets. Oracle doesn't do
> it currently, TestCase doesn't do it, and IMO assuming the IDs are
> going to start from 1 is an assumption one should not make.
>
> Objections to just getting rid of
On May 8, 12:50 am, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> On May 5, 4:31 pm, Andreas Pelme wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On May 4, 2:30 pm, Karen Tracey http://gmail.com)>
> > > wrote:
> > > Thanks for the link. While reading the previous threads I spotted at
> > > one blocker issue: the first TransactionT
On May 5, 4:31 pm, Andreas Pelme wrote:
> > On May 4, 2:30 pm, Karen Tracey http://gmail.com)>
> > wrote:
> > Thanks for the link. While reading the previous threads I spotted at
> > one blocker issue: the first TransactionTestCase will not start with
> > zeroed database sequence values. To preve
On Saturday 5 May 2012 at 00:39, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> On May 4, 2:30 pm, Karen Tracey http://gmail.com)> wrote:
> Thanks for the link. While reading the previous threads I spotted at
> one blocker issue: the first TransactionTestCase will not start with
> zeroed database sequence values. To pr
On Friday 4 May 2012 at 13:30, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Andreas Pelme (mailto:andr...@pelme.se)> wrote:
> >
> > That's a good question. Anyone who wrote to original
> > TransactionTestCase/reordering implementation that wants to chime in? :-)
>
> I worked on the tes
On May 4, 2:30 pm, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Andreas Pelme wrote:
>
> > That's a good question. Anyone who wrote to original
> > TransactionTestCase/reordering implementation that wants to chime in? :-)
>
> I worked on the test speedups that introduced TransactionTest
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Andreas Pelme wrote:
>
> That's a good question. Anyone who wrote to original
> TransactionTestCase/reordering implementation that wants to chime in? :-)
I worked on the test speedups that introduced TransactionTestCase and
I added the re-ordering, but the behavio
Anssi, thanks a lot for the detailed feedback, it is much appreciated! My
comments are inlined below:
On Friday 4 May 2012 at 10:03, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> I marked the ticket DDN, there are three reasons:
> 1. If a test case screws up cleanup it will cause problems for
> itself currently, a
On May 4, 10:09 am, Andreas Pelme wrote:
> Here's the ticket:
>
> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/18271
>
> … and an initial patch:
>
> https://github.com/django/django/pull/45
I marked the ticket DDN, there are three reasons:
1. If a test case screws up cleanup it will cause problems f
On Thursday 3 May 2012 at 19:23, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> On May 3, 7:29 pm, Andreas Pelme http://pelme.se)> wrote:
> > I am trying to run my Django test suite with an alternative test runner
> > (py.test), and found some issues with test isolation.
> >
> > TransactionTestCase does currently no
On Thursday 3 May 2012 at 22:14, Ramiro Morales wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Andreas Pelme (mailto:andr...@pelme.se)> wrote:
> > I am trying to run my Django test suite with an alternative test runner
> > (py.test), and found some issues with test isolation.
> >
> > TransactionTestCa
On Thursday 3 May 2012 at 21:17, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Andreas Pelme (mailto:andr...@pelme.se)> wrote:
> >
> > Djangos default testrunner reorders the test suite to run all TestCase
> > tests before TransactionTestCases, which avoids this problem. I cannot find
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Andreas Pelme wrote:
> I am trying to run my Django test suite with an alternative test runner
> (py.test), and found some issues with test isolation.
>
> TransactionTestCase does currently not clean up after itself (i.e. flush the
> database), but instead assumes
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Andreas Pelme wrote:
>
> Djangos default testrunner reorders the test suite to run all TestCase tests
> before TransactionTestCases, which avoids this problem. I cannot find this
> reordering documented anywhere,
It is documented:
https://docs.djangoproject.com/
On May 3, 7:29 pm, Andreas Pelme wrote:
> I am trying to run my Django test suite with an alternative test runner
> (py.test), and found some issues with test isolation.
>
> TransactionTestCase does currently not clean up after itself (i.e. flush the
> database), but instead assumes that the nex
20 matches
Mail list logo
