bpo-20548: Use specific asserts in warnings and exceptions tests #788
Conversation
serhiy-storchaka
added
type-feature
|
@serhiy-storchaka, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @tiran, @Yhg1s and @pjenvey to be potential reviewers. |
terryjreedy
left a comment
terryjreedy
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Given obj = 'abc'
Replacing self.assertTrue(obj is None, "%s" % obj)
producing False is not true : abc
with self.assertIsNone(obj)
producing 'abc' is not None
is a real improvement.
|
The details of the coverage 'failure' seem bogus. (I guess this has been noticed before.) |
zhangyangyu
left a comment
zhangyangyu
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
enhancement or bugfix? the labels?
|
I said on the equivalent bytes issue that I consider backports unnecessary since we are very unlikely to introduce a regression that does not affect default. |
|
I think that backporting will help to backport new tests. |
|
New tests are sometimes not backported either. I don't know what criteria others use. For the present case, I believe some of the specific asserts are not in 2.7, and I think that 3.5 should already be security fix only. I might backport this just to 3.6, or I might decide that other issues are more pressing. Your decision. |
5 participants
No description provided.