subunit-dev team mailing list archive

[Robert Collins <robertc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 
> One test I added was for the behaviour of wasSuccessful(). The test
> shows that wasSuccessful() returns True, then returns False after
> addError() is called. I figure this is a valid interface test.

>

> I've made the test pass by having wasSuccessful logic in the wrapper.
> Personally, I think the logic should be in TestProtocolClient.
> Otherwise, I don't see why it should even defined as a method at all.
> 
> Anyway, these are my thoughts.


This doesn't say much about motivation: why, in trial
--reporter=subunit, you would want wasSuccessful to ever return False.

Runners such as trial will call the method all the time - so it has to
exist. But they will also often try to print failures, and change their
sys.exit value based on the return value of wasSuccessful, in ways that
aren't helpful for subunit pipelines or callouts from parent processes.

So I think in a narrow interpretation of the interface, your test is
valid. In my interpretation, where 'wasSuccessful' means 'should the
runner execute an error code path', your test isn't valid, because 'the
runner should not ever execute an error code path *if subunit
successfully communicated the test activity*.

-Rob

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part