testtools-dev team mailing list archive
-
testtools-dev team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #00665
[Bug 791889] [NEW] The value_re argument for ExpectedException should be optional, and be a matcher instead
Public bug reported:
For compatibility, a str/unicode argument could be treated as a regular
expression as it is now.
** Affects: testtools
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of testtools
developers, which is subscribed to testtools.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/791889
Title:
The value_re argument for ExpectedException should be optional, and be
a matcher instead
Status in testtools:
New
Bug description:
For compatibility, a str/unicode argument could be treated as a
regular expression as it is now.
Follow ups
-
[Bug 791889] Re: The value_re argument for ExpectedException only fits some situations
From: Jonathan Lange, 2011-07-28
-
[Bug 791889] Re: The value_re argument for ExpectedException only fits some situations
From: Jonathan Lange, 2011-07-27
-
[Bug 791889] Re: The value_re argument for ExpectedException only fits some situations
From: Jonathan Lange, 2011-07-27
-
[Bug 791889] Re: The value_re argument for ExpectedException only fits some situations
From: Jonathan Lange, 2011-07-26
-
[Bug 791889] Re: The value_re argument for ExpectedException only fits some situations
From: Jonathan Lange, 2011-07-20
-
[Bug 791889] Re: The value_re argument for ExpectedException only fits some situations
From: Jonathan Lange, 2011-07-20
-
[Bug 791889] Re: The value_re argument for ExpectedException only fits some situations
From: Jonathan Lange, 2011-07-01
-
[Bug 791889] Re: The value_re argument for ExpectedException should be optional, and be a matcher instead
From: Robert Collins, 2011-06-12
-
[Bug 791889] [NEW] The value_re argument for ExpectedException should be optional, and be a matcher instead
From: Gavin Panella, 2011-06-02
References