On 10/6/13, Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> wrote: > 2013/10/6 Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@gmail.com>: >> Hi, >>
:) [...] >> >> unittest doesn't look to release memory (the TestCase class) after the >> execution of a test. > > Is it important to optimize unittests for memory usage? > AFAICT , test results will stored the outcomes of individual test cases , which is O(n) under normal circumstances, but I guess this is not what Victor was talking about (isn't it ?). However , I've been thinking since some time ago that if the only outcome of running the test suite is to dump the output to stdout or any other file-like object then test result lists might be of little value most of the time . Maybe an efficient runner + results implementation focused on streaming output with no caching could help with efficient memory allocations . Regarding the memory allocated in setUp* method(s) then IMO it should be torn down if it will not be used anymore. Such optimizations should be better performed in TCs tearDown* methods themselves rather than e.g. automatically deallocating memory associated to TC instances . Sometimes different tools use such data for certain analysis . <jftr> BTW , I've detected a few instances where this proves to be useful (to me) ; especially (concurrently) running (matrix jobs of) relatively long test suites on hosted (Jenkins) instances , where quotas apply . </jftr> -- Regards, Olemis - @olemislc Apache™ Bloodhound contributor http://issues.apache.org/bloodhound http://blood-hound.net Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/ Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/ Featured article: Popularidad de Python, septiembre 2013 - http://goo.gl/fb/tr0XB _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
