[Python-Dev] PEP: Frequently-requested additional features for the `unittest` module

Brett Cannon brett at python.org
Wed Jul 16 04:29:26 CEST 2008

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Scott Dial <scott+python-dev at scottdial.com> writes:
>> Why [introduce redundant test names]?
>> assert_not_less_than = assert_greater_than_or_equal
>> assert_not_greater_than = assert_less_than_or_equal
>> assert_not_less_than_or_equal = assert_greater_than
>> assert_not_greater_than_or_equal = assert_less_than
> To answer the question: The above tests are logically equivalent, but
> the failure message would be different, reporting failure in terms of
> what the caller wanted to test.
> I se your point though. I'd like to see what others think on this
> issue.
>> Besides, ``assert_not_greater_than_or_equal`` is god-awful-long,
>> along with the complaints about PEP-8-ifying. I wonder if it would
>> be better to abbreviate these names with the *same name* that was
>> used for the attribute in the operator module. Let's not reinvent
>> the wheel here..
> Interesting. So you advocate collapsing the above eight tests into the
> following four:
>    assert_lt
>    assert_gt
>    assert_le
>    assert_ge

Is any of this really necessary? Isn't this the equivalent of
``assert_(a < b)``? It seems like the only thing you get out of this
is a nicer error message, but ``assert_(a < b, 'not %r <= %s' % (a,
b))`` is not that complex. And do these cases really come up that
often? I would want to see some numbers showing that these are really
necessary (in both usage and people even specifying an error message
in the first place).


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list