[Python-Dev] Purpose of Doctests [Was: Best practices for Enum] (original) (raw)

Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net
Mon May 20 15:38:52 CEST 2013

On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:32:10 +1000 Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote:

On 20/05/13 20:45, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:41:59 -0700 > Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> We should continue to encourage users to make thorough unit tests >> and to leave doctests for documentation. That said, it should be >> recognized that some testing is better than no testing. And doctests >> may be attractive in that regard because it is almost effortless to >> cut-and-paste a snippet from the interactive prompt. That isn't a >> best practice, but it isn't a worst practice either. > > There are other reasons to hate doctest, such as the obnoxious > error reporting. Having to wade through ten pages of output to find > what went wrong is no fun.

Ten pages of broken unit tests are no picnic either.

You didn't understand the objection. I'm talking about one broken doctest in a sea of non-broken ones. For some reason doctest (or its unittest driver) insists on either displaying everything, or nothing. It doesn't only print the errors and leave the rest silent.

> Also the difficulty of editing them. For some reason, my editor doesn't > offer me facilities to edit interactive prompt session snippets.

Your text editor doesn't allow you to edit text? Even Notepad allows that! Seriously, what editor are you using that doesn't allow you to edit pasted snippets?

I don't know if you're intentionally being stupid. Of course I can edit them by hand. But I'll have to re-create by hand the various artifacts of an interpreter session, e.g. the prompts.

Regards

Antoine.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list