Yeah, that makes sense. As it is, the test case is really checking that the
`setUp` worked right, which is kind of indirect. I can probably combine the
tests into one test case as well. I'll do that.



On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Robert David Grant <notifications@github.com
> wrote:

> In distarray/local/tests/paralleltest_mpiutils.py:
>
> > +from distarray.error import InvalidCommSizeError, InvalidRankError
> > +from distarray.mpiutils import MPI, create_comm_of_size, create_comm_with_list
> > +from distarray.testing import comm_null_passes
> > +
> > +
> > +class TestCreateCommWithList(
> unittest.TestCase):
> > +    """ Test creating MPI comm with comm_with_list().
> > +
> > +    Note that this is not derived from the usual MpiTestCase.
> > +    This is so that this can create the MPI communicator using
> > +    an alternate code path that is otherwise not tested.
> > +    """
> > +
> > +    def setUp(self):
> > +        self.nodes = [0, 1, 2, 3]
> > +        self.comm = create_comm_with_list(self.nodes)
>
> SInce the purpose of this test is to test create_comm_with_list,
> shouldn't it be in the test rather than in setUp?
>
> --
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/enthought/distarray/pull/206/files#r10397870>
> .
>