-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/18/2011 06:09 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 2011-5-18 20:10, Chris McDonough wrote:
>> I'm not sure what it means for actions to leak. The actions are kept on
>> an attribute of the configurator, so if the configurator dies, the
>> actions di
On 2011-5-19 00:09, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
On 2011-5-18 20:10, Chris McDonough wrote:
I'm not sure what it means for actions to leak. The actions are kept on
an attribute of the configurator, so if the configurator dies, the
actions die too. I don't understand how they'd survive the death of th
On 2011-5-18 20:10, Chris McDonough wrote:
I'm not sure what it means for actions to leak. The actions are kept on
an attribute of the configurator, so if the configurator dies, the
actions die too. I don't understand how they'd survive the death of the
original configurator.
It has me baffle
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 17:35 +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I think I finally found the state leakage problem. What appears to be
> happening is this:
>
> First test A runs, and creates a Configuration() instance and does some
> work on it, including calling config.scan(). This instance is garb
I think I finally found the state leakage problem. What appears to be
happening is this:
First test A runs, and creates a Configuration() instance and does some
work on it, including calling config.scan(). This instance is garbage
collected once test A finishes. Next test B runs. This is a fun
I am running into something weird. I have a unittest that looks like this:
def test_configure_default_authentication_policy(self):
from pyramid.interfaces import IAuthenticationPolicy
from pyramid.authentication import AuthTktAuthenticationPolicy
factory = self.Applica
