On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Holger Krekel <holger.krekel@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
Ignoring many of the finer points brought up here, and putting practicality before purity, I think having setUpClass and tearDownClass methods is a great idea.
While we're at it I would also recommend adding module-level setUp and tearDown function -- Google's extension of pyunit implements these and they are often handy for a variety of use cases.
If going for that i'd rather like to see those named setup_class/teardown_class and setup_module/teardown_module like py.test and nose do for a long time now. When i first went for those i actually did so because i wanted to follow PEP8 ... But the stronger argument now is that it would be cool seeing some tool/approach convergence and unittest is the new kid on the setup-block there :)
Even PEP 8 admits that consistency within a module trumps theany global style requirements. It's already setUp and tearDown, and any new methods added should follow that camel-case convention.
I see the module consistency argument. It'd still confuse a lot of existing test suites and test writers out there which already use the idiom. The PEP8 mention was for reference that the naming wasn't chosen arbitrarily. A more fundamental question maybe is if/how how we want to work towards python test tool convergence on concepts and naming. best, holger
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)