[Python-Dev] unittest's redundant assertions: asserts vs. failIf/Unlesses
Guido van Rossum
guido at python.org
Tue Apr 8 02:37:54 CEST 2008
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 2:15 PM, <glyph at divmod.com> wrote:
> > On 02:21 pm, murman at gmail.com wrote:
> > >>OTOH, I'd rather there be OOWTDI so whatever the consensus is is fine
> > >>with me.
> > >
> > >This strikes me as a gratuitous API change of the kind Guido was
> > >warning about in his recent post: "Don't change your APIs incompatibly
> > >when porting to Py3k"
> > I agree emphatically. Actually I think this is the most extreme case.
> > The unit test stuff should be as stable as humanly possible between 2
> > and 3, moreso than any other library.
> This is convincing for me. Move my +1 back to 3.1.
Same here; let's tread carefully here and not change this with 3.0.
Starting to deprecate in 3.1 and killing in 3.3 would be soon enough.
I like using only the assertKeyword variants, removing assert_, fail*,
and assertEquals. However I don't like changing assertTrue and
assertFalse to insist that the value is exactly True or False -- if
you really care that much, let's add assertIs(x, y) which asserts that
x and y are the same object. I also think that all tests should use
the operator their name implies, e.g. assertEqual(x, y) should do
if x == y:
if x != y:
Someone please open a bug for this task.
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
More information about the Python-Dev