On 26/11/14 09:33, Louis Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 08:54:35AM -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
It's not about an equality condition.

It's about the message that is produced by testtools.TestCase.assertEqual(),
and the helpfulness of that message when the order of the arguments is
reversed.

This is especially true with large dict comparisons. If you get a message
like:

  reference: <large_dict>
  actual: <large_dict>

And the arguments are reversed, then you end up wasting time looking in the
test code instead of the real code for the thing that is different.

Anyway, like I said, it's not something that we can write a simple hacking
check for, and therefore, it's not something that should have much time
spent on. But I do recommend that reviewers bring it up, especially if the
patch author has been inconsistent in their usage of (expected, actual) in
multiple assertEqual() calls in their patch.

I think Nicolas's question was what made testtools choose this ordering. As far
as I know, the python docs for unittest uses the opposite ordering. I think
most people can see that the error messages involving 'reference' and 'actual'
are useful, but maybe not the fact that in order to achieve them using
testtools, you need to go against the norm for other testing frameworks.

The python docs for unittest mostly use 'first' and 'second' as the parameter names, and unittest doesn't distinguish between expected and actual in the default error messages.

That said, some of the newer assertions like assertDictEqual do use expected and actual, _in that order_, the same as testtools does.

The bottom line is that there are exactly two ways to do it, the entire world has now chosen one way and while I might otherwise have chosen differently for the same reasons as Nicolas, it would be absurd not to do it the same way.

That said, the entire discussion is moot because it can't be checked automatically.

cheers,
Zane.

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to