On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 21:48 -0700, Maru Newby wrote:
> Discussing the issue at ODS is definitely a good idea. Mock adherents
> may prefer its pythonic approach to the java-like semantics of mox,
> but it would still be good to have guidelines on when mox might be a
> more appropriate choice.
Mox
Hi Dan,
Discussing the issue at ODS is definitely a good idea. Mock adherents may
prefer its pythonic approach to the java-like semantics of mox, but it would
still be good to have guidelines on when mox might be a more appropriate choice.
Thanks,
Maru
On 2012-04-07, at 10:43 AM, Dan Wend
Hi Maru,
Thanks for brining this up. This might make for an interesting discussion
session on the "Common development" track at the summit.
I don't have enough experience using both frameworks to offer a technical
preference, but my main goal is that from a project perspective it is easy
for peo
So, there are mock adherents other than me. And apparently no strong voices
advocating for removal. Should it co-exist alongside mox then? Should there
be a preference as to how new tests are implemented? If replay is desired, mox
may still be useful, although my own experience suggests that
+1 to mock
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Jason Kölker wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 20:04 -0700, Maru Newby wrote:
> > With that in mind, does anybody have any good arguments in favour of
> > keeping mock?
>
> PEP 417 - mock is in the stdlib as of Python 3.3.
>
> Happy Hacking!
>
> 7-11
>
>
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 20:04 -0700, Maru Newby wrote:
> With that in mind, does anybody have any good arguments in favour of
> keeping mock?
PEP 417 - mock is in the stdlib as of Python 3.3.
Happy Hacking!
7-11
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack
Post to : netstack@lists.laun
6 matches
Mail list logo
