RetroSearch Browse

Thu Dec 31 16:30:12 CET 2009 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-December/094742.html

Thanks for the quick response.

On 30/12/2009, Benjamin Peterson <benjamin at python.org> wrote:
>
> When I made that change, I didn't know that the __unittest "hack" was
> being used elsewhere outside of unittest, so I felt fine replacing it
> with another. While I still consider it an implementation detail, I
> would be ok with exposing an "official" API for this. Perhaps
> __unittest_ignore_traceback?

Well, bazaar has had the trick for a couple of years, and googling
around now turns up some other projects using it or thinking about it:
<http://github.com/gfxmonk/mocktest/commit/b5e94f7ee06ab627cea2c9cf90d0aeb63ee5a698>
<http://bitbucket.org/uche/amara/changeset/eeaf69f48271/>
<http://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/4127>

I get the impression Robert doesn't like it much though, and seemed to
have wanted something more targeted in the past as well:
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1705520>

Reinstating the old implementation (with the same name) would mean
that existing code would keep working with Python 2.7 but maybe a
discussion could start about a new, less hacky, way of doing the same
thing. May not be worthwhile making life more complicated though,
there aren't *that* many unittest-extending projects.

Martin

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-December/094742.html below:

[Python-Dev] Question over splitting unittest into a package