Jared Grubb wrote: > I'm not criticizing the current battery of tests, nor am I arguing that > we replace them. > > There's a comment in the test_re.py that says that "these tests were > carefully modeled to cover most of the code"... That is a very difficult > statement to maintain and/or verify, especially if the library gets a > major revision (which it appears the original post's patch is). > > PCRE has _thousands_ of detailed regular expression tests, testing > everything from matching to parsing to extended regular expression > syntax to encoding and locales. (It's been a while since I've looked at > the details, but of course there are tests that dont apply to Python's > implmentation.) > > So, if there's interest in investigating how much of the PCRE tests can > augment the existing tests, I am offering to do so. (I already did a > simple translation utility to parse the PCRE test format into something > we could use in the PyPy test suite; I could try to do something similar > for test_re, if there's interest). There is a conflict between running a thorough test of everything possible and not having the test suite run for hours. I believe a couple of other modules have a regular sanity-check test and an extended patch-check test. Something like that might be appropriate for re.
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