Roundup Robot added the comment:
New changeset eb3714863872 by Brett Cannon in branch 'default':
Issue #10966: Remove the concept of unexpected skipped tests.
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/eb3714863872
--
nosy: +python-dev
___
Python tracker
Changes by Brett Cannon br...@python.org:
--
resolution: - fixed
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10966
___
Changes by Brett Cannon br...@python.org:
--
stage: patch review - committed/rejected
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10966
___
___
Brett Cannon added the comment:
I'm at PyCon Argentina Friday and Saturday, so I have a rare opportunity to get
stuff done. If anyone has issues or comments, please get them in over the next
day or so, else I'm going to check this in as-is.
--
___
Brett Cannon added the comment:
Here is a new patch which removes the expected skips stuff and adds a
required_on argument to test.support.import_module() for those cases where
missing a module is an error (in the patch it's _winreg on Windows).
If people are fine with this cleanup then the
Changes by Eric Snow ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +eric.snow
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10966
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Changes by Brett Cannon br...@python.org:
--
assignee: - brett.cannon
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10966
___
___
Changes by Brett Cannon br...@python.org:
--
versions: +Python 3.4 -Python 3.3
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10966
___
___
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
+1 to Ezio’s last message.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10966
___
___
Changes by Andrej Krpic akrpi...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +akrpic77
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10966
___
___
Python-bugs-list
+1 to the counter argument that Unexpected Skips should not be marked as
failures.
Also, I like the following proposal of giving better messages on skips
useful.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 07:53:34AM +, Ezio Melotti wrote:
It's also possible to provide better skip messages, e.g.:
Changes by Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com:
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file21381/unnamed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10966
___
Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com added the comment:
IMHO the current unexpected list is fairly pointless. I just ran the test
suite on 3.3 and I got the usual expected list of unexpected skips:
7 skips unexpected on linux2:
test_bz2 test_dbm_gnu test_dbm_ndbm test_tcl test_tk
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
Well, I'm not so attached to the unexpected skip list that I want to block this
from getting implemented. So I guess the bottom line is that things that are
unexpected skips now should not be failures.
--
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
I’m probably the one with the least regrtest knowledge among us, but I like the
general idea of moving the compat info from one huge dict into the tests
themselves. It looks more readable and maintainable.
The new tests for test.support looks
Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment:
In terms of the symmetrical comment, what exactly do you mean? The semantics
are opposites of each other. Do you not like the name? Or did I screw up and
they truly aren't opposites?
--
___
Python
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
It’s only the names that are not symmetrical (“_on” or not).
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10966
___
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
The attached patch has both the code to make test skipping more
obvious as well as eliminating the concept of expected skips.
I still don't like the idea that we have to hand-maintain lists of
optional or required platforms. It is not more
Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment:
I can change it to 'required' and 'optional'.
As for Antoine's comment, do you have another suggestion? I realize it isn't
necessarily easier per se to manage these lists than the 'expected' list, but
what would you rather have happen? Simply
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
I can change it to 'required' and 'optional'.
As for Antoine's comment, do you have another suggestion? I realize it
isn't necessarily easier per se to manage these lists than the
'expected' list, but what would you rather have happen?
Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 15:22, Antoine Pitrou rep...@bugs.python.orgwrote:
Sure, but do the buildbots pick up on this fact in some visible way?
Perhaps we can keep required/optional for core things like posix or
winreg. But failing the test
Changes by Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr:
--
nosy: +ezio.melotti
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10966
___
___
Python-bugs-list
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
Antoine wrote:
Do you want to keep track of the specificities of each version of the *BSDs?
Currently regrtest does, but they are currently all set to the same list of
tests. Perhaps a FreeBSD generic that implies all versions, and
Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment:
The attached patch has both the code to make test skipping more obvious as well
as eliminating the concept of expected skips.
If someone can double-check that what I am doing here is sane and desirable I
would appreciate it.
--
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
Hmm. I'm not sure passing a list of platforms is a good idea. People may want
to write e.g. 'bsd' in platform. Also, there are a lot of platforms we don't
have access to, so we can't actually maintain a list of platforms.
Also, I really don't
Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment:
So os.name is also supported. But the point is that if a platform wants to be
considered supported then they need to give us a patch to update the tests to
make them acceptable to skip.
As for test_ttk and such, those that have a third-party
Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment:
I should also mention that if the idea of whitelisting failures
doesn't fly, it can always be changed to be a blacklist of failures
(i.e., ditch 'optional' and only use 'required_on'). But I did it this
way to force people to clearly state on what
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
As for test_ttk and such, those that have a third-party dependency are
still optional no matter what. This change is **only** for modules we
expect to always build on certain platfoms (e.g., winreg under Windows
or crypt on UNIX systems).
Ah,
Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment:
Well, ctypes failing because it cannot compile is only when a platform that is
not listed as optional cannot import it. So if some platform does not support
ctypes then it gets added to the list, end of story.
We only support so many platforms
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
Well, ctypes failing because it cannot compile is only when a platform
that is not listed as optional cannot import it. So if some platform
does not support ctypes then it gets added to the list, end of story.
How do you add llvm under darwin
Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment:
You don't. ctypes failing under LLVM 2.8 should not be a special case of
skipping; ctypes not building on darwin regardless of whether it is gcc or
clang is a failure. If someone uses a compiler we don't support, that's their
decision.
Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment:
One other option is to simply have a whitelist of platforms that test.support
knows of so it only considers it a failure when the platform being run on is
known (regrtest does this already).
--
___
Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment:
I should mention this would act as a nice testing doc for exactly which
platforms CPython considers supported.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10966
Changes by Brett Cannon br...@python.org:
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file20725/issue10966.diff
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10966
___
Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment:
Here is the completed patch. It adds required_on and 'optional' args to
test.support.import_module() to help delineate if a test should **not** be
skipped simply because a module could not be imported. It also changes various
tests to use the
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
The patch works fine on Linux but breaks test_pipes and test_sqlite on
Windows:
[1/1] test_pipes
testBadAppendOptions (test.test_pipes.SimplePipeTests) ... ok
testBadOpenMode (test.test_pipes.SimplePipeTests) ... ok
testBadPrependOptions
Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment:
New patch which makes test_pipes back into an explicit skip if os.name !+ posix
and makes test_sqlite optional on all platforms.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file20737/issue10966.diff
___
Changes by Brett Cannon br...@python.org:
--
title: eliminate use of ImportError implicitly representing TestSkipped -
eliminate use of ImportError implicitly representing SkipTest
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
38 matches
Mail list logo
