On 14/02/2019 14:56, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:25 PM Eric Snow <ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com > <mailto:ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 02:47 Ronald Oussoren via Python-Dev > <python-dev at python.org <mailto:python-dev at python.org> wrote: > > > I usually use shutil.rmtree for tests that need to create > temporary files, and create a temporary directory for those > files (that is, use tempfile.mkdtemp in setUp() and use > shutil.rmtree in tearDown()). That way I don’t have to adjust > house-keeping code when I make changes to test code. > > > Same here. > > -eric > > > What I generally do is avoid relying on tempfile.mkdtemp() and always > use TESTFN instead. I think it's cleaner as a pradigm because it's an > incentive to not pollute the single unit tests with `self.addCleanup()` > instructions (the whole cleanup logic is always supposed to occur in > setUp/tearDown): Must chime in here because I've been pushing (variously months & years ago) to move *away* from TESTFN because it generates numerous intermittent errors on my Windows setup. I've had several goes at starting to do that but a combination of my own lack of time plus some people's reluctance to go that route altogether has stalled the thing. I'm not sure I understand the difference in cleanup/teardown terms between using tempfile and using TESTFN. The objections I've seen from people (apart, obviously, from test churn) are to do with building up testing temp artefacts on a possibly low-sized disk. TJG
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