On 6/4/06, Michael Hudson <mwh at python.net> wrote: > > "Thomas Wouters" <thomas at python.org> writes: > > > On 6/4/06, Michael Hudson <mwh at python.net> wrote: > > [ For non-checkins readers: Martin Blais checked in un-unittestification > > of test_struct, which spawned questions form Neal and me about whether > > that's really the right thing to do. I also foolishly< 0.5 wink> > siggested > > that, if we switch away from unittest, we switch to py.test instead of > the > > old unstructured tests ] > > > > "Tim Peters" <tim.peters at gmail.com> writes: > > > unittest, and especially doctest, encourage breaking tests into > small > > > units. An example of neither is test_descr.py, which can be a real > > > bitch to untangle when it fails. > > > > Also, there is an advantage to have more structure to the tests; if > > all of python's tests used unittest, my regrtest -R gimmickery would > > be able to identify tests, rather than test files, that leaked and I'm > > pretty sure that this would have saved me a few hours in the last > > couple of years. Also, you can more easily identify particular tests > > that fail intermittently. Etc. > > > > I'm not arguing against structure, just against all the unittest cumber. > > For example, py.test doesn't do the output-comparing, and it does > require > > you to put tests in separate functions. However, it doesn't require (but > > does allow) test classes. Test-generators are generators that *return* > > tests, which are then run, so that you can have separate tests for > > runtime-calculated tasks, and yet still have them be separate tests for > > error reporting and such. py.test also allows tests to print during > > execution, and that output is kept around as debug output: it's only > shown > > when the test fails. It also comes with a convenient command-line tool > > that can run directories, modules, individual tests, etc -- which, for > > unittest, I *always* have to copy-paste select bits out of regrtest and > > test_support for. My own project testing has gotten much more exhaustive > > since I started using py.test, it's just much, much more convenient. > > I don't want to pull the 'do you know who I am?' routine, and I know > you're addressing python-dev rather than just me, but I'm currently > sitting in the same room as the guy who wrote py.test :-) > > I'm also not sure what point you're trying to make: I *know* py.test > is better than unittest, that's not what I was saying. But unittest > is better than old-skool output comparison tests. > > I guess you're not really replying to my mail, in fact... :) I'm sorry, I guess I was misunderstanding your mail. I thought Tim's reaction was "we want unittest because we want structure", and your reaction was "yes, we need more structure", both of which I took as "I don't really know anything about py.test" :) Since no one argued *against* structure, I'm not sure where the structure argument comes from. As for not knowing about your "involvement" with py.test, well, how could I? py.test doesn't list an 'author' anywhere I could find, the webpage just says "last edited by Holger", and the debian package came with no CREDITS file other than the 'copyright' file, which doesn't list you ;-P Credit-+=-mwh-where-credit-is-due--now-please-merge-with-unittest-already<wink>'ly y'rs, -- Thomas Wouters <thomas at python.org> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20060604/f65fe514/attachment.htm
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