launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Paul Hummer <paul.hummer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:50:26 -0400
Benji York <benji.york@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Jonathan Lange <jml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > However, the question that I now have is this: what benefit do we
> > gain by insisting on security-proxied objects in the unit tests for
> > our model code?
> 
> If the model code doesn't operate on proxied objects in production,
> then I can't see any benefit.
> 
> The hard part is being sure.

I just got my first FAILURE ec2 emails and I have to say that these
warnings make it impossible to find the failing tests, and make the
body of the email impossibly long. In my mind, that should be the only
thing that shows in the body of the email, and you can put whatever
other junk in the attachment. All I care about are the failing tests.

Unless we have a clear complete plan for fixing these warnings, I
suggest we back out this change.  It's great that we get the nudging,
but I also don't want to have to deal with this for months on end until
the next Epic where we have some free-hack time to fix it.

Cheers,
Paul