On 23.07.12 19:38, Jesus Cea wrote: > The problem is that if we do ">=", then an unpatched python > interpreter could pass the test too. So we are not actually testing > the feature. > > If the repeat counters are going to be optimized, the obvious step > would be to upgrade the test to do something like "BHHIL" instead of > "123B". I would wait until this feature is implemented to update the test. > > What do you think?. I think any __sizeof__ tests are meaningless, because any result is implementation detail. For other implementations we get other values and other relations. Any of our a priori assumptions could be incorrect. Even my first assert may fail, if implementation uses a continuous array with overallocation. I am now prepared a set of 14 __sizeof__ patches (should it be one issue or 14 individual issues in bugtracker?), and I feel a great desire not to write tests at all.
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