[Zope-dev] Zope Tests: 42 OK, 3 Failed

[Tres Seaver]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Benji York wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Tres Seaver <tseaver at palladion.com> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Zope Tests Summarizer wrote:
>>> Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
>>> Period Sun Jun 27 12:00:00 2010 UTC to Mon Jun 28 12:00:00 2010 UTC.
>>> There were 45 messages: 6 from Zope Tests, 11 from ccomb at free.fr, 1 from ct at gocept.com, 27 from jdriessen at thehealthagency.com.
>>>
>>>
>>> Test failures
>>> -------------
>>>
>>> Subject: FAILED : Zope Buildbot / zope2.12 slave-osx
>>> From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com
>>> Date: Sun Jun 27 13:01:37 EDT 2010
>>> URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015850.html
>> The failing test here looks completely absurd:
>>
>> - ------------------------------- %< -----------------------------------
>> Failure in test
>> /Users/buildslave/.buildout/eggs/zope.testbrowser-3.6.0a2-py2.6.egg/zope/testbrowser/README.txt
>> Failed doctest test for README.txt
>>  File
>> "/Users/buildslave/.buildout/eggs/zope.testbrowser-3.6.0a2-py2.6.egg/zope/testbrowser/README.txt",
>> line 0
>>
>> - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> File
>> "/Users/buildslave/.buildout/eggs/zope.testbrowser-3.6.0a2-py2.6.egg/zope/testbrowser/README.txt",
>> line 1248, in README.txt
>> Failed example:
>>    browser.lastRequestPystones < 10000 # really big number for safety
>> Expected:
>>    True
>> Got:
>>    False
>>
>> - ------------------------------- %< -----------------------------------
>>
>> What in the name of all that is holy is that supposed to be testing
>> (much lest documenting)?  In other words:  who wants to argue for not
>> ripping that useless (so I assert ;) assertion out?
> 
> The above is attempting to document the fact that the
> lastRequestPystones exists and is a number.  If I were to write the
> test today I'd use a mocking framework to fix the number returned so the
> example is more direct, but it seems sufficient as-is.

The fact that the test failed seems to make it less than sufficient.  I
don't quite see how checking pystones is a useful measure, unless you
*know* that there is only CPU involved and that the machine where you
are checking it is effectively unloaded:  I/O and scheduling latencies
aren't going to be magically subtracted.



Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver          +1 540-429-0999          tseaver at palladion.com
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkwstZ4ACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ46cwCfVv1kW9puKD42/4LA9A6fIl+9
GloAoL0aniwfERm8KLKecHuhtGt8Bb98
=ER8F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----