On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote: > > I'm sorry, but somehow I could not parse this. My understanding was > > that the unittest was meant to make sure an os.stat call would be > > successful on an open file, and that pagefile.sys was simply used as a > > known open file, which is no longer correct. > > No. The unit test was meant to test that os.stat is successful on an > open file on which 2.5 reported ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION. I believe > it was not the case that it would report ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION > when stat'ing arbitrary open files, but just open files where some > additional conditions must be met. I might be misremembering - I > *think* I tried to write the test case just like you did, and it > could not trigger the bug. I then concluded that I could not figure > out what these additional conditions were, and that it *had* to > be the pagefile. > > So please verify that your new test indeed breaks on 2.5.0 (or > undo r54686). > > Regards, > Martin Some record of this or documentation of just what conditions the tests are expecting to test against would probably be a good idea. -- Read my blog! I depend on your acceptance of my opinion! I am interesting! http://ironfroggy-code.blogspot.com/
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