2016-08-25 11:41 GMT+02:00 Cédric Krier <cedric.kr...@b2ck.com>: > On 2016-08-25 10:22, Sergi Almacellas Abellana wrote: > > El 25/08/16 a les 10:02, Jesús Martín Jiménez ha escrit: > > >Hi, > > > > > >I'm testing a customized module and I run into an issue I'm not sure how > > >to resolve. My module has an extras_depend of stock_lot and an on_change > > >method for lot field. It works well, but when I try to pass the unittest > > >test, it fails with this traceback [1]. I'm not sure if it is a bug or > > >the desired behavior. > > > > For me is the expected behavior if you define the on_change_lot method > when > > the stock_lot module is not installed. > > > > That can be solved by defining the on_change only if the stock_lot > module is > > installed, which can be done on the __setup__ method of the class. > > This is not very elegant. Indeed I think it will be better to install > the extra_depends in the setupClass. >
The ideal would be to run tests with only the dependencies and also (another execution) with each extra_depends. It will give us the maximum coverage... but provably with an ¿unacceptable? time consumption. -- Guillem Barba http://www.guillem.alcarrer.net -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tryton" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tryton/CAMgcrAxPB9dkHaKr-nwmZuK3CeQuo90mPPV3Hh%2B38c-Or3R5Mw%40mail.gmail.com.
