On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Glyph wrote:
>
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 3:51 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
>
> On 08:33 pm, gl...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 8:40 AM, Jonathan Lange wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Laurens Van Houtven <_...@lvh.io> wrote:
On Jul 25, 2013, at 6:51 PM, Matt Haggard wrote:
> I have a few thoughts:
>
> First, how does this hypothetical system for specifying return types solve
> the original problem (that user-written methods on TestCase pass unexpectedly
> when a non-Deferred is returned)? If I'm the one writing
> That sounds like a great idea, I wonder if anyone's thought of it before.
I suggested this in #twisted a few years back and was immediately told it
was a bad idea (names withheld!).
Another case in which this pops up is if you accidentally yield some
deferreds in a test but don't decorate with
On 25 Jul, 02:25 pm, jamesbroadh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey all -
I've recently started working with the 'mock' library in our trial
tests,
and am looking for some best-practice advice. I'm really just starting
to
get used to the library, so it might well have functionality that I'm
unaware of
On Jul 26, 2013, at 7:12 AM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
> To address this problem, I suggest you get into the habit of watching your
> unit tests fail in the expected way before you make the necessary
> implementation changes to make them pass.
>
> This is only one of an unlimited number
