RetroSearch Browse

Tue Jul 15 16:16:36 CEST 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-July/081154.html

Nick Coghlan wrote:
> One option for rationalising the API would be to merely keep the
> shortest version of each phrase (i.e. use assert* instead of
> fail_unless* for the positive tests and fail_if* instead of
> assert_not* for the negative tests, and always drop the trailing 's'
> from 'equals').

Disclaimer: I'm not convinced the ideas in this message are actually a 
good idea myself. But I found them intriguing enough to bother posting 
them. To give some idea of how the different styles would look, here's 
an example (based on one of the tests in test_runpy) using a combination 
of assert* and fail_if* names:

         self.fail_if_contains(d1, "result")
         self.assert_identical(d2["initial"], initial)
         self.assert_equal(d2["result"], self.expected_result)
         self.assert_equal(d2["nested"]["x"], 1)
         self.assert_(d2["run_name_in_sys_modules"])
         self.assert_(d2["module_in_sys_modules"])
         self.assert_identical(d2["run_argv0"], file)
         self.assert_identical(sys.argv[0], saved_argv0)
         self.fail_if_contains(sys.modules, name)

A somewhat odd thought that occurred to me is that the shortest possible 
way of writing negative assertions (i.e. asserting that something is not 
the case) is to treat them as denials and use the single word 'deny'.

This approach would give:

Test assertions:
   assert_almost_equal
   assert_identical
   assert_contains
   assert_raises
   assert_equal
   assert_

Test denials (negative assertions):
   deny_almost_equal   (17)
   deny_identical      (14)
   deny_contains       (13)
   deny_equal          (10)
   deny                 (4)

Explicit failure:
   fail                 (4)

Using the test_runpy example assertions:
         self.deny_contains(d1, "result")
         self.assert_identical(d2["initial"], initial)
         self.assert_equal(d2["result"], self.expected_result)
         self.assert_equal(d2["nested"]["x"], 1)
         self.assert_(d2["run_name_in_sys_modules"])
         self.assert_(d2["module_in_sys_modules"])
         self.assert_identical(d2["run_argv0"], file)
         self.assert_identical(sys.argv[0], saved_argv0)
         self.deny_contains(sys.modules, name)

I actually quite like that - and it saves not only several characters, 
but also an underscore over the fail_if* and assert_not* variants.

The second odd thought was what happens if the 'assert' is made implicit?

Test assertions:
   are_almost_equal
   are_identical
   does_contain
   does_raise
   are_equal
   assert_

Test negative assertions:
   not_almost_equal
   not_identical
   not_contains
   not_equal
   not_

Explicit failure:
   fail

Using the test_runpy example assertions:
         self.not_contains(d1, "result")
         self.are_identical(d2["initial"], initial)
         self.are_equal(d2["result"], self.expected_result)
         self.are_equal(d2["nested"]["x"], 1)
         self.assert_(d2["run_name_in_sys_modules"])
         self.assert_(d2["module_in_sys_modules"])
         self.are_identical(d2["run_argv0"], file)
         self.are_identical(sys.argv[0], saved_argv0)
         self.not_contains(sys.modules, name)

Yecch, I think that idea can be safely consigned to the mental trash heap.
Another late night API concept: create a "check" object with the LHS of 
the binary operation being asserted, then use methods on that check 
object to supply the RHS:

         self.check("result").not_in(d1)
         self.check(d2["initial"]).is_(initial)
         self.check(d2["result"]).equals(self.expected_result)
         self.check(d2["nested"]["x"]).equals(1)
         self.assert_(d2["run_name_in_sys_modules"])
         self.assert_(d2["module_in_sys_modules"])
         self.check(d2["run_argv0"]).is_(file)
         self.check(sys.argv[0]).is_(saved_argv0)
         self.check(name).not_in(sys.modules)

This approach would also be handy if you needed to check multiple 
conditions on a single result:

     check = self.check(result)
     check.is_equal(expected_result) # Right answer
     check.is_not(expected_result)   # Fresh object
     check.is_(recent_results[-1])   # Recorded properly

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
             http://www.boredomandlaziness.org

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-July/081154.html below:

Consolidating names and classes in the `unittest`module (updated 2008-07-15)