"Thomas Wouters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6/4/06, Michael Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ For non-checkins readers: Martin Blais checked in un-unittestification
> of test_struct, which spawned questions form Neal and me about whether
> that's really the right thing to do. I also foolishly< 0.5 wink> siggested
> that, if we switch away from unittest, we switch to py.test instead of the
> old unstructured tests ]
>
> "Tim Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > unittest, and especially doctest, encourage breaking tests into small
> > units. An example of neither is test_descr.py, which can be a real
> > bitch to untangle when it fails.
>
> Also, there is an advantage to have more structure to the tests; if
> all of python's tests used unittest, my regrtest -R gimmickery would
> be able to identify tests, rather than test files, that leaked and I'm
> pretty sure that this would have saved me a few hours in the last
> couple of years. Also, you can more easily identify particular tests
> that fail intermittently. Etc.
>
> I'm not arguing against structure, just against all the unittest cumber.
> For example, py.test doesn't do the output-comparing, and it does require
> you to put tests in separate functions. However, it doesn't require (but
> does allow) test classes. Test-generators are generators that *return*
> tests, which are then run, so that you can have separate tests for
> runtime-calculated tasks, and yet still have them be separate tests for
> error reporting and such. py.test also allows tests to print during
> execution, and that output is kept around as debug output: it's only shown
> when the test fails. It also comes with a convenient command-line tool
> that can run directories, modules, individual tests, etc -- which, for
> unittest, I *always* have to copy-paste select bits out of regrtest and
> test_support for. My own project testing has gotten much more exhaustive
> since I started using py.test, it's just much, much more convenient.
I don't want to pull the 'do you know who I am?' routine, and I know
you're addressing python-dev rather than just me, but I'm currently
sitting in the same room as the guy who wrote py.test :-)
I'm also not sure what point you're trying to make: I *know* py.test
is better than unittest, that's not what I was saying. But unittest
is better than old-skool output comparison tests.
I guess you're not really replying to my mail, in fact... :)
Cheers,
mwh
--
<glyph> we need PB for C#
* moshez squishes glyph
<moshez> glyph: squishy insane person
-- from Twisted.Quotes
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
