On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 1:22 AM, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote: > On 15 July 2015 at 10:05, Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote: >> On 07/14/2015 02:53 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > ... >>>> 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? > > I'm not supporting the misspelling thing - see my suggestion earlier > in this thread to move the mock assertions to standalone functions, > removing the bug in that area *entirely* and eventually removing the > check for method names starting with assert from mock entirely. > > What I am doing is rejecting the argument that because we can't fix > every mis-use users might make, we therefore should not fix the cases > where we can fix it. > > For clarity, I think we should: > - remove the assret check, it is I think spurious. > - add a set of functions to the mock module that should be used in > preference to Mock.assert* > - mark the Mock.assert* functions as PendingDeprecation > - in 3.6 move the PendingDeprecation to Deprecated > - in 3.7 remove the Mock.assert* functions and the check for method > names beginning with assert entirely. +1, but I think we need to get Larry's approval for the steps 2 and 3 because 3.5 is in feature-freeze mode. --Berker
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