On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 04:01:44 +1100, Lie Ryan wrote: > On 01/07/2012 12:36 AM, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote: >> True, perhaps, but doing it this way would be more fun and easier >> reusable in other cases where the default order is not desirable. I can >> also go and name the test functions test_000 to test_009 to get results >> quickly, if that was the only goal. > > Fun and easier, perhaps. Except that it solves the wrong problem.
Fun and easier, and a terrible thing to do. Contrast: "test_binsearch_tuple is failing. What does that mean?" "Oh, that tests that binsearch works on a tuple. You need to look at the BinSearch.search_tuple method and see what it's doing." with "test_047 is failing. What does that mean?" "How the hell should I know?" Debugging is hard enough without obfuscating the test names. You wouldn't write a function called "func_009", why write one called "test_009"? -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
