Open simon-weber opened 9 years ago
As the test will almost certainly fail for a different reason, is this really an issue? attempts to start http is caught. This seems more like a documentation task to me.
I don't entirely remember the case which led me to open this, but I remember that the test was still passing. Maybe the failure was expected? Or it wasn't under test, so not asserted on?
expected failures always run that risk of not verifying the desired failure, but instead verifying that some unexpected failure occurred ;-)
Was it definitely a DNS lookup which sparked this issue? Could it have been an alternative scheme which failed? e.g. irc://... or ftp://..
To play devils advocate again: If it performed a DNS lookup (successful or not), why is that within scope of this plugin whereas other types of failure within a http library (valueerrors, out of memory, disk cache, etc) would not be within scope.
If someones goal is to detect/prevent any network activity, https://github.com/ustudio/nose_connection_report/ looks like a more reliable 'approach'.
Was it definitely a DNS lookup which sparked this issue? Could it have been an alternative scheme which failed? e.g. irc://... or ftp://..
Yeah, it was a dns issue. I'd imagine that alternate schemes would cause a similar failure, but I'm not sure.
If someones goal is to detect/prevent any network activity, https://github.com/ustudio/nose_connection_report/ looks like a more reliable 'approach'.
Neat, I wasn't aware of that project. I think our goals are the same, but our solutions have different tradeoffs: detecthttp will give better performance at the cost of potential false negatives.
...because currently we check for recorded responses and vcr.py will not record a response for requests that fail eg during the dns lookup.