On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Mark McLoughlin <mar...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 16:42 -0500, Chuck Short wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Mark McLoughlin <mar...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 13:11 -0800, Shawn Hartsock wrote: > > > Maybe we should have some 60% rule... that is: If you change > > more than > > > half of a test... you should *probably* rewrite the test in > > Mock. > > > > > > A rule needs a reasoning attached to it :) > > > > Why do we want people to use mock? > > > > Is it really for Python3? If so, I assume that means we've > > ruled out the > > python3 port of mox? (Ok by me, but would be good to hear why) > > And, if > > that's the case, then we should encourage whoever wants to > > port mox > > based tests to mock. > > > > > > > > The upstream maintainer is not going to port mox to python3 so we have > > a fork of mox called mox3. Ideally, we would drop the usage of mox in > > favour of mock so we don't have to carry a forked mox. > > Isn't that the opposite conclusion you came to here: > > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-July/012474.html > > i.e. using mox3 results in less code churn? > > Mark. > > > Yes that was my original position but I though we agreed in thread (further on) that we would use mox3 and then migrate to mock further on. Regards chuck
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
