On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 01:45:13PM -0700, Sheng Yang wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Prasanna Santhanam wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:20:22PM -0700, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > > About the patch I committed, in fact it's not moving. It's fixing.
> > > Because:
> > > 1. The logical
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Prasanna Santhanam wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:20:22PM -0700, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > About the patch I committed, in fact it's not moving. It's fixing.
> Because:
> > 1. The logical reason is, currently in many cases(which I committed the
> > patches) the
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:20:22PM -0700, Sheng Yang wrote:
> About the patch I committed, in fact it's not moving. It's fixing. Because:
> 1. The logical reason is, currently in many cases(which I committed the
> patches) the account is already create per test case rather than per
> module. And if
About the patch I committed, in fact it's not moving. It's fixing. Because:
1. The logical reason is, currently in many cases(which I committed the
patches) the account is already create per test case rather than per
module. And if account is created in setUp() rather than setUpClass(), the
clean u
In the test modules when you debug you will notice that accounts are
created once per module in setUpClass() all resources created within
it and tearDownClass() destroys the account initiating cleanup. All
the resources are appended to a cleanup [] list and deleted in
appropriate order at the end o
