[RFC][PATCH]

[Martin Pool]

(Just wanted to remind people that email should have a subject as well
as the rfc and patch tags - i suppose robert just pressed enter too
soon.)

On  3 Jan 2006, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:

> The problem is discriminating between transports that can set modes, and
> transports that cant set modes. 
> 
> For instance, HTTP can never do modes - the protocol does not 'get' it.
> SFTP can - and we could make stub_server talk to a transport instance
> with MemoryTransport backing it, to get a sftp server with mode support
> on windows.
> MemoryTransport can do modes, but does not write to the fs.
> 
> So right now Johns new transport tests are inactive, because they are
> all in the defunct test_transport TransportTestsMixIn class. 
> 
> I can see several routes out:
> 
> a) test mode setting as part of the Transport interface: check the modes
> are set via stat(), and skip those tests on win32 and for read only
> transports.
> b) have two implementation tests for transport - one for the primary
> interface, and one for mode aware transports 
> c) test that the mode is set on the backend correctly on a per transport
> basis (basically c, but along the lines of the old transport tests.)
> 
> My preference is a), but I wanted input first..

When you put it like that a) seems best.  I'm looking at the branch now.

-- 
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060110/d7563c25/attachment.pgp