[issue27152] Additional assert methods for unittest

R. David Murray added the comment: I would expect it to be assertEndswith, etc. You will note that all the other cases of multiple capitals are either englishification of symbolic operators or concatenations of separate type words and/or syntactically distinct operators. -- _

[issue27152] Additional assert methods for unittest

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: Ask five people to spell "assertEndsWith" and see how many of them capitalize the "W". -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue27152] Additional assert methods for unittest

Changes by Pam McA'Nulty : -- nosy: +Pam.McANulty ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.

[issue27152] Additional assert methods for unittest

Robert Collins added the comment: I'm fine with these as a mixin - they are all very generic and unambiguously named. I'd marginally prefer the opt-in mixin over adding them to the base class. Ideally they'd be matchers, but since I haven't ported that upstream yet, thats asking for more work

[issue27152] Additional assert methods for unittest

Chris Barker added the comment: Why a mixin rather than adding to TestCase? If they are useful they should be easy to find. Also, see Issue27198 for another possible new assert. -- nosy: +ChrisBarker ___ Python tracker

[issue27152] Additional assert methods for unittest

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: Changes in tests are provided as a demonstration that these methods are useful. I propose to commit only the unittest part, and use new methods on a case-by-case basis. For example some tests already define methods like assertHasAttr or assertIsSubclass, The

[issue27152] Additional assert methods for unittest

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: I don't really like the assertEndsWith method which triggers a mental hiccup when taking a familiar method call, making it into function call, and giving an awkward looking camelcase name. Also, Guido is usually opposed to broad, sweeping search/replace pat

[issue27152] Additional assert methods for unittest

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: I have this proposal (issue19645) in mind. We can add these method just in TestCase. In any case I'm going to add the ExtraAssertions mixin in test.support in maintained versions to help keeping branches in sync. --

[issue27152] Additional assert methods for unittest

R. David Murray added the comment: Why a mixin? (As an aside, there is a proposal to move all assert methods to a place where they can be accessed outside test cases.) -- ___ Python tracker __

[issue27152] Additional assert methods for unittest

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: Additional statistics that proves that specified checks are not specific for narrow group of tests: assertHasAttr 121 times in 57 files assertNotHasAttr 99 times in 31 files assertIsSubclass243 times in 30 files assertNotIsSubclass 95 times in

[issue27152] Additional assert methods for unittest

New submission from Serhiy Storchaka: Proposed patch adds the ExtraAssertions mix-in that provides additional assert methods. These methods provide better failure report than assertTrue/assertFalse with a result of corresponding function. For example assertStartsWith outputs shorten reprs of t