> Bug 450225 references a bunch of URL parsing tests based on RFC
> 2396. I've added them to test_urlparse.py. The problem is, two of
> them fail. Should I
>
> * check in test_urlparse.py & create an output/test_urlparse that
> reflects those two errors
Definitely not; it's too easy to forget about it.
> * check in test_urlparse.py & create an output/test_urlparse that
> reflects how those two problematic URLs ought to be parsed
Only if you plan to check in a fix to urlparse.py ASAP.
> * comment out those two failing tests, and generate a 0-error
> output/test_urlparse file
Possibly, if you don't have time to work on a fix right away.
> * do nothing
Personally, I think the best solution is to post a bug report to SF
quoting the two tests, and leave them out of the test suite unless you
have a fix.
> Those two failing tests are:
>
> urljoin('http://a/b/c/d;p?q', '?y')
> expected 'http://a/b/c/?y',
> got 'http://a/b/c/d;p?y'
>
> urljoin('http://a/b/c/d;p?q', ';x')
> expected 'http://a/b/c/;x',
> got 'http://a/b/c/d;x'
>
> Finally, this uses the old test format. Since so much of the test script
> gets touched, should I go ahead and convert to unittest?
That's an entirely different question. If you feel like it, go
ahead. (Obviously the asserts given on SF are useless.)
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4