On Tue, 21 May 2013 02:00:32 +1000 Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On 20/05/13 23:38, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:32:10 +1000 > > Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > >> On 20/05/13 20:45, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:41:59 -0700 > >>> Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> We should continue to encourage users to make thorough unit tests > >>>> and to leave doctests for documentation. That said, it should be > >>>> recognized that some testing is better than no testing. And doctests > >>>> may be attractive in that regard because it is almost effortless to > >>>> cut-and-paste a snippet from the interactive prompt. That isn't a > >>>> best practice, but it isn't a worst practice either. > >>> > >>> There are other reasons to hate doctest, such as the obnoxious > >>> error reporting. Having to wade through ten pages of output to find > >>> what went wrong is no fun. > >> > >> Ten pages of broken unit tests are no picnic either. > > > > You didn't understand the objection. I'm talking about *one* broken > > doctest in a sea of non-broken ones. For some reason doctest (or its > > unittest driver) insists on either displaying everything, or nothing. > > It doesn't only print the errors and leave the rest silent. > > > It sounds like you are inadvertently calling doctest with the verbose option. > It is not standard behaviour to display "everything or nothing". Well, I never run doctest directly, I use regrtest (there are some doctests in the standard library). So perhaps the blame lies on regrtest or on the unittest adapter, my bad. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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
