[Python-Dev] Proposed unittest changes
Guido van Rossum
guido at python.org
Thu Apr 17 16:54:32 CEST 2008
I'm worried that a mass renaming would do anything but inconvenience
users during the already stressful 2->3 transition.
I'm more in favor of the original proposal of reducing the redundancy post-3.0.
If you're looking for useful features, Google has a set of extensions
to unittest.py that I find useful:
- module-level setUp and tearDown
- routines for comparing large lists and strings that produce useful
output indicating exactly where the inputs differ.
- assertLess etc.
- assertSameElements (sort of like assert(set(x) == set(y))
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 6:49 AM, Michael Foord
<fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
> Hello all,
> I'm starting to put together a list of cleanups (with documentation
> changes) for the unittest module. I thought someone had already done
> this but the issue with the most comments I could find was 2578 which
> doesn't go into much detail:
> The thing most people would like is test discovery - but that probably
> requires some discussion before anything can be added to unittest.
> What I would like to do is PEP-8'ify the method names (widening the API
> rather than shrinking it!):
> failure_exception (? - class attribute)
> Documenting that these are to be preferred to 'assertEquals' and
> 'failUnlessEquals' (etc) and that the 'assert' statement should be used
> instead of 'assert_'.
> Adding the following new asserts:
> assert_in (member, container, msg=None)
> assert_not_in (member, container, msg=None)
> assert_is (first, second, msg=None)
> assert_not_is (first, second, msg=None)
> assert_raises_with_message (exc_class, message, callable, *args,
> A decorator to turn a test function into a TestCase ("as_test_case" ?).
> A simple 'RunTests' function that takes a collection of modules, test
> suites or test cases and runs them with TextTestRunner - passing on
> keyword arguments to the test runner. This makes running a test suite
> easier - once you have collected all your test cases together you can
> just pass them to this function so long as you are happy with the
> default runner (possibly allowing an alternative runner class to be
> provided as a keyword argument).
> I would provide an implementation for discussion of course.
> I would also like to make the error messages for "assert_equals" and
> "assert_not_equals" more useful - showing the objects that compare
> incorrectly even if an explicit message is passed in. Additionally, when
> comparing lists and tuples that are the same length show the members
> (and indices?) that were different.
> I've copied Steve Purcell into this email, but his comments on issue
> 2578 indicate that he is happy for 'us' to make changes and he no longer
> has a string sense of "ownership" of this module.
> Michael Foord
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
More information about the Python-Dev