[Python-Dev] Proposed unittest changes (original) (raw)

Jonathan Lange jml at mumak.net
Fri Apr 18 00:40:21 CEST 2008

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Jonathan Lange <jml at mumak.net> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Michael Foord > <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote: > > assertraiseswithmessage (excclass, message, callable, *args, > > **keywargs) > > > > I don't think this one should go in. > > I think it would be better if assertRaises just returned the exception > object that it catches. That way, you can test properties of the > exception other than its message. Hm. I've got to say that returning the exception object is, um, an odd API in the set of unittest APIs. I can see how it's sometimes more powerful, but I'd say that in many cases assertRaisesWithMessage will be easier to write and read. (And making it a regex match would be even cooler.)

I don't know about odd. It works and it's not obviously terrible.

Not having it the unittest API simply means that people who do want to test non-message properties will rewrite assertRaises. Which is, in fact, what we've already done.

jml

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list