I just closed the bug report quoted below with the following response:
I don't agree that unit tests should run automatically. Nor do I
think adding magic to the language to support unit tests is
necessary when it is trivial to add some external mechanism.
I guess this topic could be opened up for discussion if someone else
disagrees with me. Regardless, though, it's too late for 2.1.
Jeremy
>>>>> ">" == noreply <noreply@sourceforge.net> writes:
>> Bug #131480, was updated on 2001-Feb-07 18:44 Here is a current
>> snapshot of the bug.
>> Details: We can make unit testing as simple as writing the test
>> code! Everyone agrees that unit tests are worth while. Python
>> does a great job removing tedium from the job of the programmer.
>> Unit test should run automatically. Here's a method everyone can
>> agree to:
>> Have the compiler check each module for a funtion with the
>> special name '__test__' that takes no arguments. If it finds it
>> it calls it.
>> The problem of unit testing divides esiliy into two pieces: How
>> to create the code and how to execute the code. There are many
>> options in creating the code but I have never seen any nice
>> solutions to run the code automatically "if __name__ ==
>> '__main__':"
>> doesn't count since you have to do somthing special to call the
>> code i.e.
>> run it as a script. There are of course ways to run the test
>> code automatically but the ways I have figured out run it on
>> every import (way too often especially for long tests). I
>> imagine there is a way to check to see if the module is loaded
>> from a .pyc file and execute test code accouringly but this seems
>> a bit kludgy. Here are the benifits of compile time
>> auto-execution:
>> - Compatible with every testing framework.
>> - Called always and only when it needs to be executed.
>> - So simple even micro projects 'scripts' can take advantage
>> Disadvantages:
>> - Another special name, '__test__'
>> - If there are more please tell me!
>> I looked around the source-code and think I see the location
>> where we can do this. It's would be a piece of cake and the
>> advantages far outway the disadvantages. If I get some support
>> I'd love to incorporate the fix.
>> Justin Shaw thomas.j.shaw@aero.org
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4