Martin Pool wrote:
> 2009/9/18 fullermd <email address hidden>:
>>> I chose to modify the tests that were expecting a clean stderr (or
>>> some expected stderr) because they were only a few of them.
>> This makes me a little nervous, in that it adds a new undocumented
>> rule about what you need to do if you care about stderr when writing a
>> test (and since pretty much anybody writing a test probably HAS
>> extensions, they'll never notice it either).
>
> It does seem a bit hacky.
>
Though arguably this is why I asked Vincent to run the test suite on a
buildbot with extensions disabled... :)
John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Martin Pool wrote:
> 2009/9/18 fullermd <email address hidden>:
>>> I chose to modify the tests that were expecting a clean stderr (or
>>> some expected stderr) because they were only a few of them.
>> This makes me a little nervous, in that it adds a new undocumented
>> rule about what you need to do if you care about stderr when writing a
>> test (and since pretty much anybody writing a test probably HAS
>> extensions, they'll never notice it either).
>
> It does seem a bit hacky.
>
Though arguably this is why I asked Vincent to run the test suite on a
buildbot with extensions disabled... :)
John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- enigmail. mozdev. org/
0P9QACgkQJdeBCY SNAAORMgCfT/ dBFDj17+ iDIW9wluK23U1T d22HoQ8B8o/ KR7iEc
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://
iEYEARECAAYFAkq
ebsAninoVjFBVR0
=4xsA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----