Launchpad itself

Merge lp://staging/~allenap/launchpad/enable-isolation-tests-bug-551751 into lp://staging/launchpad

enable-isolation-tests-bug-551751
Merge into devel

Proposed by Gavin Panella on 2011-01-22

Status:

Merged

Approved by:

Gavin Panella on 2011-01-26

Approved revision:

no longer in the source branch.

Merged at revision:

12267

Proposed branch:

lp://staging/~allenap/launchpad/enable-isolation-tests-bug-551751

Merge into:

lp://staging/launchpad

Diff against target:

69 lines (+6/-19)

1 file modified

lib/lp/bugs/externalbugtracker/tests/test_isolation.py (+6/-19)

To merge this branch:

bzr merge lp://staging/~allenap/launchpad/enable-isolation-tests-bug-551751

High

Fix Released

Link a bug report

Reviewer	Review Type	Date Requested	Status
Aaron Bentley (community)		2011-01-22	Approve on 2011-01-24
Review via email: mp+47164@code.staging.launchpad.net

Commit message

[r=abentley][ui=none][bug=551751] Fix ordering issues in TestIsolation.setUp() and re-enable its test methods.

Description of the change

Amends TestIsolation.setUp() - see the comment I've added to the code
- and re-enables the test methods.

Revision history for this message

Aaron Bentley (abentley) wrote on 2011-01-24:

Don't we always need to define test_suite? Assuming we don't, approved.

I don't really understand why store.execute('SELECT 1') solves these issues, though. Is it simply because it's unknown SQL, so Storm conservatively flushes?

review: Approve

Revision history for this message

Gavin Panella (allenap) wrote on 2011-01-25:

Thank you for the review :)

> Don't we always need to define test_suite? Assuming we don't, approved.

The Zope test runner seems to DTRT now (and many other test runners do too).

> I don't really understand why store.execute('SELECT 1') solves these issues,
> though. Is it simply because it's unknown SQL, so Storm conservatively
> flushes?

The difference is that it now does a "SELECT 1" in every store, not just the first (which might be set to auto-commit). At least one of the stores will be set to SERIALIZABLE isolation. As soon as a query is executed in one of these stores a transaction must be started. I suppose I could execute "BEGIN" instead; maybe that would be clearer. In fact, maybe transaction.begin() would be enough! I wonder if I tried that when I wrote these tests the first time...