> For the validation to be correct, I think this method:
>
> def is_correct_password_confirmation(self, password):
> """Return if the password is correct."""
> return self.view.ui.password_line_edit.text() == password
>
> should be:
>
> def is_correct_password_confirmation(self, password):
> """Return if the password is correct."""
> return unicode(self.view.ui.password_line_edit.text()) == password
Those two are equivalent because QStrings and unicode strings comparison works.
Added it anyway to be explicit.
> Also, all docstrings need to end with a dot.
Fixed
> Question, shouldn't these checks in our code assert over a specific validation
> callback instead of any callable?
>
> self.view.ui.password_edit.textChanged.connect(MATCH(callable))
I agree, but it's the way it's done in all the other tests, and improving the mocker-based tests is
not exactly my forte ;-)
> For the validation to be correct, I think this method: password_ confirmation( self, password): ui.password_ line_edit. text() == password password_ confirmation( self, password): self.view. ui.password_ line_edit. text()) == password
>
> def is_correct_
> """Return if the password is correct."""
> return self.view.
>
> should be:
>
> def is_correct_
> """Return if the password is correct."""
> return unicode(
Those two are equivalent because QStrings and unicode strings comparison works.
Added it anyway to be explicit.
> Also, all docstrings need to end with a dot.
Fixed
> Question, shouldn't these checks in our code assert over a specific validation ui.password_ edit.textChange d.connect( MATCH(callable) )
> callback instead of any callable?
>
> self.view.
I agree, but it's the way it's done in all the other tests, and improving the mocker-based tests is
not exactly my forte ;-)
> Great work on all the tests added!
Thanks!