-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32.2k
Direct invocation of test_inspect/test_inspect.py
fails
#116785
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
Should we really encourage usage of running directly tests? Maybe it's time to give up on
But well, I'm fine with the fix. |
I find this really useful when you can click on a file in IDE and say "run this file". No build step, no settings, no nothing. It just works (until it does not 😄 ). |
It was useful to make every toplevel test be runnable as a script. But it never worked well for tests in subdirectories and required too many inconvenient changes, so I gave up on this. |
I always run "./python -m test <test_name>". The only time when I really have to run a test manually if when everything goes wrong and I need a fully control on what's going on. Like when I'm debugging regrtest or unittest. |
I close the issue, it's now fixed :-) |
Yes, it is what I usually do too. Running test directly is only useful to test some unexpected dependencies on libregrtest. It was more relevant in the past, when libregrtest used non-standard way to collect tests ( |
I routinely run tests I am editing from the editor. Of course, idlelib tests have worked that way from the beginning because I developed or tested them that way from the beginning. |
Ok, it's good to see how people are running tests. Apparently, the trend is to continue allowing to run them directly. So let's do that 😁 |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Bug report
I will send a PR.
Linked PRs
test_inspect
#116787test_inspect
(GH-116787) #116794test_inspect
(GH-116787) #116795The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: