On 2015-07-14 23:05, Ethan Furman wrote: > On 07/14/2015 02:53 PM, Robert Collins wrote: >> On 15 July 2015 at 09:41, A.M. Kuchling <amk at amk.ca> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 09:53:33AM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote: >>>> Part of writing tests is making sure they fail (and for the right reason) -- proper testing of the tests would reveal such a typo. >>> >>> And there are other failure modes for writing tests that succeed but >>> are not testing what you think. For example, you might re-use the >>> same method name: >>> >>> def test_connection(self): >>> # Never executed >>> ... >>> >>> ... 200 lines and 10 other test methods later ... >>> >>> def test_connection(self): >>> ... >>> >>> Or misuse assertRaises: >>> >>> with self.assertRaises(TypeError): >>> 1 + "a" >>> # Second statement never reached >>> [] + 'b' >>> >>> I don't think unittest can protect its users from such things. >> >> It can't, but there is a sliding scale of API usability, and we should >> try to be up the good end of that :). > > I hope you're not suggesting that supporting misspellings, and thereby ruling out the proper use of an otherwise fine variable name, is at the good end of that scale? > Somewhat OT, but did you know that the Unicode "Line_Break" property has "Inseparable" as one of its possible values, and that "Inseperable" is a permitted alias of it? <yuck/>
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