Ben Finney wrote: > Scott Dial <scott+python-dev at scottdial.com> writes: > >> Why [introduce redundant test names]? > > To answer the question: The above tests are logically equivalent, but > the failure message would be different, reporting failure in terms of > what the caller wanted to test. I can see how this argument makes sense, and is distinct from the fail* vs. assert* discussion. As you say, I'm interested what other think about this. >> Besides, ``assert_not_greater_than_or_equal`` is god-awful-long, >> along with the complaints about PEP-8-ifying. I wonder if it would >> be better to abbreviate these names with the *same name* that was >> used for the attribute in the operator module. Let's not reinvent >> the wheel here.. > > Interesting. So you advocate collapsing the above eight tests into the > following four: > > assert_lt > assert_gt > assert_le > assert_ge I would argue to go even further: assertEqual = assert_eq assertAlmostEqual = assert_almost_eq assertNotEqual = assert_ne assertNotAlmostEqual = assert_almost_ne I'm not sure if there are others, but using the same abbreviations from operator is consistent and readable and short, in my opinion. -- Scott Dial scott at scottdial.com scodial at cs.indiana.edu
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