[Python-Dev] Proposed unittest changes (original) (raw)
Jonathan Lange jml at mumak.net
Fri Apr 18 00:28:17 CEST 2008
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Proposed unittest changes
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Proposed unittest changes
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
I'm worried that a mass renaming would do anything but inconvenience users during the already stressful 2->3 transition.
I'm more in favor of the original proposal of reducing the redundancy post-3.0. If you're looking for useful features, Google has a set of extensions to unittest.py that I find useful: - module-level setUp and tearDown - routines for comparing large lists and strings that produce useful output indicating exactly where the inputs differ. - assertLess etc. - assertSameElements (sort of like assert(set(x) == set(y))
Hi,
Some things that Bazaar, Twisted and Launchpad have found helpful:
assertRaises returning the exception object that it catches. This allows for easy testing of exception strings.
Assertion methods for 'in', 'is' and 'isinstance' and their negations.
TestCase.addCleanup. This method takes a function, args and kwargs and pushes them to a stack of cleanups. Before tearDown is run, each of these cleanups is popped off the stack and then run. This makes it easier to acquire certain resources in tests:
e.g
def make_temp_dir(self): dir = tempfile.mkdtemp() self.addCleanup(shutil.rmtree, dir) return dir
Luckily, I have patches (with tests!) for these that I will be filing on the tracker as soon as I get the opportunity.
jml
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Proposed unittest changes
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Proposed unittest changes
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]