RetroSearch Browse

Wed Feb 10 02:10:30 CET 2010 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-February/097559.html

Michael Foord <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> writes:

> I've used unittest for long running functional and integration tests
> (in both desktop and web applications). The infrastructure it provides
> is great for this. Don't get hung up on the fact that it is called
> unittest. In fact for many users the biggest reason it isn't suitable
> for tests like these is the lack of shared fixture support - which is
> why the other Python test frameworks provide them and we are going to
> bring it into unittest.

I would argue that one of the things that makes ‘unittest’ good is that
it makes it difficult to do the wrong thing — or at least *this* wrong
thing. Fixtures persist for the lifetime of a single test case, and no
more; that's the way unit tests should work.

Making the distinction clearer by using a different API (and *not*
extending the ‘unittest’ API) seems to be the right way to go.

-- 
 \     “I object to doing things that computers can do.” —Olin Shivers |
  `\                                                                   |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-February/097559.html below:

[Python-Dev] setUpClass and setUpModule in unittest