[issue9977] TestCase.assertItemsEqual's description of differences
Michael Foord mich...@voidspace.org.uk added the comment:
In Python 3.2 assertItemsEqual has been replaced with assertCountEqual that has
a completely different implementation and error format. The implementation and
error output will be backported to the assertItemsEqual method of 2.7 (and to
unittest2).
Error output:
AssertionError: Element counts were not equal:
First has 1, Second has 0: ('b', (2, 3))
First has 0, Second has 1: ('x', (2, 3))
--
resolution: - invalid
stage: unit test needed - committed/rejected
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9977
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue9977] TestCase.assertItemsEqual's description of differences
Changes by Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com: -- nosy: +ezio.melotti ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue9977 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue9977] TestCase.assertItemsEqual's description of differences
Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu added the comment: If I understand correctly, you are requesting that .assertItemsEqual only use the 2nd (multiset comparison) method, so that if one want the first method, one should directly call .assertSequenceEqual(sorted(a), sorted(b)). This seems reasonable to me, but I do not use the unittest module, and I suspect others want the implicit call. -- nosy: +terry.reedy stage: - unit test needed ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue9977 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue9977] TestCase.assertItemsEqual's description of differences
Matthew Woodcraft matt...@woodcraft.me.uk added the comment: Terry J. Reedy wrote: If I understand correctly, you are requesting that .assertItemsEqual only use the 2nd (multiset comparison) method, so that if one want the first method, one should directly call .assertSequenceEqual(sorted(a), sorted(b)). Yes, that would make me happy. So would a new assertXXXEqual method that always did the multiset comparison. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue9977 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue9977] TestCase.assertItemsEqual's description of differences
Changes by Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org: -- nosy: +eric.araujo ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue9977 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue9977] TestCase.assertItemsEqual's description of differences
New submission from Matthew Woodcraft matt...@woodcraft.me.uk:
TestCase.assertItemsEqual uses two different techniques to describe the
differences in the inputs that it compares.
If the inputs are sortable, it sorts them and then uses
assertSequenceEqual to describe the difference between them considered
as ordered sequences.
Otherwise, it uses unittest.util.unorderable_list_difference, which
is essentially a multiset comparison.
In practice, I think the output from unorderable_list_difference is
usually more readable, so I wonder if something of that kind should be
made the default.
Example:
a = [('b', (2, 3)), ('w', (3, 4))]
b = [('x', (2, 3)), ('w', (3, 4))]
case.assertItemsEqual(a, b)
unorderable_list_difference gives
Expected, but missing:
[('b', (2, 3))]
Unexpected, but present:
[('x', (2, 3))]
while the current assertItemsEqual gives
Sequences differ: [('b', (2, 3)), ('w', (3, 4))] != [('w', (3, 4)), ('x', (2,
3))]
First differing element 0:
('b', (2, 3))
('w', (3, 4))
- [('b', (2, 3)), ('w', (3, 4))]
+ [('w', (3, 4)), ('x', (2, 3))]
In general, I think that the 'first differing element' paragraph that
assertSequenceEqual produces is as likely to be misleading as it is to
be helpful (when we're really comparing unordered sequences).
--
messages: 117545
nosy: mattheww, michael.foord
priority: normal
severity: normal
status: open
title: TestCase.assertItemsEqual's description of differences
type: feature request
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9977
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue9977] TestCase.assertItemsEqual's description of differences
Changes by Michael Foord mich...@voidspace.org.uk: -- assignee: - michael.foord components: +Library (Lib) versions: +Python 3.2 ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue9977 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
