* Dan Kenigsberg danken@redhat.com [2012-05-30 10:43]:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 09:07:25PM -0500, Ryan Harper wrote:
- danken@redhat.com danken@redhat.com [2012-05-29 09:29]:
Dan Kenigsberg has posted comments on this change.
Change subject: tests: fix gluster storage exception test ......................................................................
Patch Set 1: Looks good to me, approved
Thanks Ryan. Though Python has the lovely
4100 <= obj.code <= 4800
Thanks, but I'm well aware of the python syntax.
I've been requested in the past[1] to be more verbose in the asserts so I figured I'd break it out into to separate asserts. Is there a general guideline we're to follow when it comes to the test cases? I'd be happy to follow.
The point is that when your current assertion explode, we still do not get infomation on the actual value of obj.code which broke it - just as with the pythonic syntactic sugar above. I suppose assertGreater() would have been more helpful - but I couldn't say no for a quick fix to a broken unit test!
the assertTrue with range check doesn't either:
Traceback (most recent call last): File "/root/work/git/clean/vdsm/tests/main.py", line 72, in test_collisions self.assertTrue(5000 <= obj.code <= 6000) AssertionError: False is not true
But the assertGreater does:
====================================================================== FAIL: test_collisions (main.TestGlusterExceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Traceback (most recent call last): File "/root/work/git/clean/vdsm/tests/main.py", line 72, in test_collisions self.assertGreater(obj.code, 5000) AssertionError: 4115 not greater than 5000
Would you be interested in conversion of the assertTrue/False to Greater/Lesser etc in tests/*.py ?