Tim Peters <tim.one@comcast.net> writes: > > I don't like the expected-skip mechanism at all. > > I love it: it solves real problems on Windows. It is unfortunate that it solves these problems *only* on Windows. > > Why is it expected that test_bz2 works on Linux? > > I don't know that it is. So should it be? If not: Why is it expected that test_bz2 fails on Linux? Whether the test passes or fails simply has nothing to what system you run it on. To solve the real problem on Windows, it seems that a list "tim_has_seen_this_test" would be sufficient. > > It won't work if you don't have the libraries. > > If so, put it in the expected-skip list for Linux. Sure, but that holds for nearly every test requiring extension modules: if some library isn't there, the module doesn't work. > Then it's an expected skip on platforms where that's a choice, in the sense > the phrase is intended. "expected skip" may be a poor name for it, although > it makes literal sense on Windows. Again: Unfortunately *only* on Windows. If the test is added to the skip list, the a potential problem will be hidden: it may be that the test ought to pass on a certain installation, but doesn't because of a real bug in Python. So adding the test into the skipped list on grounds of the library potentially unavailable hides real problems. Regards, Martin
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