On 10:42 pm, fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 09/02/2010 21:57, Ben Finney wrote:
Michael Foord<fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk> writes:
The next 'big' change to unittest will (may?) be the introduction of
class and module level setUp and tearDown. This was discussed on
Python-ideas and Guido supported them. They can be useful but are
also
very easy to abuse (too much shared state, monolithic test classes
and
modules). Several authors of other Python testing frameworks spoke up
*against* them, but several *users* of test frameworks spoke up in
favour of them. ;-)
I think the perceived need for these is from people trying to use the
18unittest 19 API for test that are *not* unit tests.
That is, people have a need for integration tests (test this module's
interaction with some other module) or system tests (test the
behaviour
of the whole running system). They then try to crowbar those tests
into
18unittest 19 and finding it lacking, since 18unittest 19 is designed for
tests of function-level units, without persistent state between those
test cases.
I've used unittest for long running functional and integration tests
(in both desktop and web applications). The infrastructure it provides
is great for this. Don't get hung up on the fact that it is called
unittest. In fact for many users the biggest reason it isn't suitable
for tests like these is the lack of shared fixture support - which is
why the other Python test frameworks provide them and we are going to
bring it into unittest.
For what it's worth, we just finished *removing* support for setUpClass
and tearDownClass from Trial.
Jean-Paul
_______________________________________________
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
