Tim Golden wrote:
> I admit: this did occur to me on the train this am. While I
> try to think of a robust way to handle this, other people have
> proposed variations on pid-based / tempdir based filenames instead
> of the same name for each test. In principle this sounds good to me,
> but I'm not at all well-placed to assess the impact it might have
> on the unit tests in general.
Personally, I've never really understood the purpose of
test_support.TESTFN. Whenever I've needed a temporary file for a test, I
just use the tempfile module (e.g. test_cmd_line_script, test_runpy).
Tests using that module don't care if the old files take 'a while' to
get deleted on Windows, as tempfile uses a different name each time anyway.
Is using a fixed TESTFN just an old approach that predates the existence
of a robust tempfile module in the standard library?
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
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