On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Olemis Lang <ole...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Michael Foord > <fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk> wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> Several >> authors of other Python testing frameworks spoke up *against* them, but >> several *users* of test frameworks spoke up in favour of them. ;-) >> > > +1 for having something like that included in unittest
hey Olemis, aren't you a test tool author as well? :) >> I'm pretty sure I can introduce setUpClass and setUpModule without breaking >> compatibility with existing unittest extensions or backwards compatibility >> issues > > Is it possible to use the names `BeforeClass` and `AfterClass` (just > to be make it look similar to JUnit naming conventions ;o) ? > >> - with the possible exception of test sorting. Where you have a class >> level setUp (for example creating a database connection) you don't want the >> tearDown executed a *long* time after the setUp. In the presence of class or >> module level setUp /tearDown (but only if they are used) I would expect test >> sorting to only sort within the class or module [1]. I will introduce the >> setUp and tearDown as new 'tests' - so failures are reported separately, > > Perhaps I am missing something, but could you please mention what will > happen if a failure is raised inside class-level `tearDown` ? > >> and >> all tests in the class / module will have an explicit skip in the event of a >> setUp failure. >> I think reporting tests as skipped when the setup failed is a bad idea. Out of several years of practise with skips and large test suites (and talking/experiencing many users :) i recommend to reserve skips for platform/dependency/environment mismatches. A Setup Error should just error or fail all the tests in its scope. cheers, holger _______________________________________________ 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
