On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 09:07:25PM -0500, Ryan Harper wrote: > * dan...@redhat.com <dan...@redhat.com> [2012-05-29 09:29]: > > Dan Kenigsberg has posted comments on this change. > > > > Change subject: tests: fix gluster storage exception test > > ...................................................................... > > > > > > Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved > > > > Thanks Ryan. Though Python has the lovely > > > > 4100 <= obj.code <= 4800 > > Thanks, but I'm well aware of the python syntax. > > I've been requested in the past[1] to be more verbose in the asserts so I > figured I'd break it out into to separate asserts. Is there a general > guideline we're to follow when it comes to the test cases? I'd be happy > to follow. > > 1. http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#patch,unified,4323,3,tests/netinfoTests.py
The point is that when your current assertion explode, we still do not get infomation on the actual value of obj.code which broke it - just as with the pythonic syntactic sugar above. I suppose assertGreater() would have been more helpful - but I couldn't say no for a quick fix to a broken unit test! Thanks a lot, Dan. _______________________________________________ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
