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

C. Titus Brown ctb at msu.edu
Tue Jul 15 06:42:54 CEST 2008

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 09:37:30PM -0700, Raymond Hettinger wrote: -> From: "Michael Foord" <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> -> >Maybe Python needs a good mocking module in the standard library. There -> >are plenty, but we use a particularly nice one at Resolver Systems [1]. :-) -> -> -1 -> -> This comes up occassionally and gets shot down. -> http://bugs.python.org/issue708125 -> -> Mock objects mean different things to different people. -> Some expect more simulated behavior and others want less. -> It's rare to find agreement about general purpose mock objects and -> frameworks. -> Mock libraries create their own complexities and burdens on a programmer's -> memory. -> It's often easier to create a small special case mock object -> than to remember how to configure a general purpose one. -> And, afaict, there is no fan club for some particular python mock -> object library -- it seems to only come up in general discussions -> about possibilities for growing the unittest module, and almost -> never comes up in the context of solving a real problem that -> hasn't already be addressed in some other way.

Also see:

http://lists.idyll.org/pipermail/testing-in-python/2007-November/000406.html

& associated thread, for those interested in the variety of mock libraries...

cheers, --titus

C. Titus Brown, ctb at msu.edu

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list