Eric Snow added the comment: (changing the title to disassociate it from a particular solution)
>> * make sure the original test case does not get used (#16835), > > PEP 399 dictates that the base class does not inherit from > unittest.TestCase, so why would it be used? Sorry for any confusion. In this list I was enumerating what you have to do to accommodate PEP 399, rather than any new behavior. Hopefully I wasn't too far off. :) I'd expect that any solution to reduce boilerplate here (like the decorator) would address these responsibilities. >> * use the relevant names as class attributes rather than globals (e.g. >> self.OrderedDict vs. OrderedDict), > > Wouldn't it be better to suggest this in PEP 399? Otherwise, the proposed > decarator kind-of goes against it. PEP 399 already espouses the approach of using a class attribute to hold the module under test, though it doesn't require it. You're right that the decorator obviates the need to make that change when accommodating PEP 399. >> * hack around modules that do their own imports (#16817), > Can you clarify how this helps? I though the decorator doesn't (yet?) > handle the problem with pickle. If a boilerplate solution can make it so that we don't have to hack around these situations whenever they come up, I think it'd be a win. The decorator currently doesn't do this, but I'd expect that any solution we accepted would. That said, if there is a risk of something like the decorator causing other problems then the status quo is certainly better even if it's more work. :) >> * relatedly, the solution is more magic/obfuscated that the current >> boilerplate. >> >> ... > > I agree that it can be made clearer, but you are unlikely to lose the > metaprogramming magic. Yeah, if the right balance can't be struck then I definitely agree that we're better of with the way things are. > Is it possible to just rewrite the tests to use collections.OrderedDict? > IMHO this extra 'names' argument adds a lot of magic to the decorator, and > if it's just there for a problem that's easy to avoid... That's a good idea. Thanks for the feedback, Eli. ---------- title: Add conforms_to_pep399() to test.support -> Use a test.support helper to wrap the PEP 399 boilerplate _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue17037> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
