MultiTestResult does not support tags

The fix for this doesn't add any tests. (And there's also no merge proposal for me to comment on).

Oh, and has been committed to the wrong branch. It's on lp:~testtools-dev/testtools/trunk rather than lp:testtools (aka lp:~testtools-committers/testtools/trunk).

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Jonathan Lange <email address hidden> wrote:
> Oh, and has been committed to the wrong branch. It's on lp:~testtools-
> dev/testtools/trunk rather than lp:testtools (aka lp:~testtools-
> committers/testtools/trunk).

It has tests via the parameterised contract tests. The wrong branch I
will fix now (have I mentioned that the big pivot around branches
really screwed me up).

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Robert Collins
<email address hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Jonathan Lange <email address hidden> wrote:
>> Oh, and has been committed to the wrong branch. It's on lp:~testtools-
>> dev/testtools/trunk rather than lp:testtools (aka lp:~testtools-
>> committers/testtools/trunk).
>
> It has tests via the parameterised contract tests. The wrong branch I
> will fix now (have I mentioned that the big pivot around branches
> really screwed me up).

Those tests weren't failing before, so they are no good for preventing
regressions in this behaviour.

jml

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Jonathan Lange <email address hidden> wrote:
> Those tests weren't failing before, so they are no good for preventing
> regressions in this behaviour.

Those tests didn't exist before.

+ def test_tags(self):
+ # tags() does not fail the test run.
+ result = self.makeResult()
+ result.startTest(self)
+ result.tags(set([]), set([]))
...
+ def test_tags(self):
+ # Calling `tags` on a `MultiTestResult` calls `tags` on all its
+ # `TestResult`s.
+ added_tags = set(['foo', 'bar'])
+ removed_tags = set(['eggs'])
+ self.multiResult.tags(added_tags, removed_tags)
+ self.assertResultLogsEqual([('tags', added_tags, removed_tags)])
...
+ def test_tags_helper(self):
+ expected = set(['present']), set(['missing', 'going'])
+ input = set(['present']), set(['missing'])
+ self.assertEqual(
+ expected, self.result1._merge_tags(input, set(), set(['going'])))
+ expected = set(['present']), set(['missing', 'going'])
+ input = set(['present', 'going']), set(['missing'])
+ self.assertEqual(
+ expected, self.result1._merge_tags(input, set(), set(['going'])))
+ expected = set(['coming', 'present']), set(['missing'])
+ input = set(['present']), set(['missing'])
+ self.assertEqual(
+ expected, self.result1._merge_tags(input, set(['coming']), set()))
+ expected = set(['coming', 'present']), set(['missing'])
+ input = set(['present']), set(['coming', 'missing'])
+ self.assertEqual(
+ expected, self.result1._merge_tags(input, set(['coming']), set()))

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Robert Collins
<email address hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Jonathan Lange <email address hidden> wrote:
>> Those tests weren't failing before, so they are no good for preventing
>> regressions in this behaviour.
>
> Those tests didn't exist before.

My bad. The test_testresult file was obscured in the loggerhead code
page (which is where I went in lieu of a merge proposal).

jml