On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Michael Foord <fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk> wrote: > On 11/02/2010 12:30, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> Michael Foord wrote: >> >>> >>> I'm not sure what response I expect from this email, and neither option >>> will be implemented without further discussion - possibly at the PyCon >>> sprints - but I thought I would make it clear what the possible >>> directions are. >>> >> >> I'll repeat what I said in the python-ideas thread [1]: with the advent >> of PEP 343 and context managers, I see any further extension of the >> JUnit inspired setUp/tearDown nomenclature as an undesirable direction >> for Python to take. >> >> Instead, I believe unittest should be adjusted to allow appropriate >> definition of context managers that take effect at the level of the test >> module, test class and each individual test. >> >> For example, given the following method definitions in unittest.TestCase >> for backwards compatibility: >> >> def __enter__(self): >> self.setUp() >> >> def __exit__(self, *args): >> self.tearDown() >> >> The test framework might promise to do the following for each test: >> >> with get_module_cm(test_instance): # However identified >> with get_class_cm(test_instance): # However identified >> with test_instance: # ** >> test_instance.test_method() >> >
What Nick pointed out is the right direction (IMHO), and the one I had in mind since I realized that unittest extensibility is the key feature that needs to be implemented . I even wanted to start a project using this particular architecture to make PyUnit extensible. It's too bad (for me) that I don't have time at all, to move forward an just do it . :( I need days with 38 hrs !!! (at least) :$ > Well that is *effectively* how they would work (the semantics) but I don't > see how that would fit with the design of unittest to make them work > *specifically* like that - especially not if we are to remain compatible > with existing unittest extensions. > AFAICS (so not sure especially since there's nothing done to criticize ;o) is that backwards compatibility is not the main stopper ... > If you can come up with a concrete proposal of how to do this then I'm happy > to listen. I'm not saying it is impossible, but it isn't immediately > obvious. I don't see any advantage of just using context managers for the > sake of it and definitely not at the cost of backwards incompatibility. > ... but since I have nothing I can show you , everything is still in my mind ... -- Regards, Olemis. Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/ Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/ Featured article: Free milestone ranch Download - mac software - http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TracGViz-full/~3/rX6_RmRWThE/ _______________________________________________ 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
