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

[Scott Dial]

Ben Finney wrote:
> Scott Dial <scott+python-dev at scottdial.com> writes:
> 
>> Why [introduce redundant test names]?
> 
> 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 can see how this argument makes sense, and is distinct from the fail* 
vs. assert* discussion. As you say, I'm interested what other think 
about this.

>> 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

I would argue to go even further:

assertEqual = assert_eq
assertAlmostEqual = assert_almost_eq
assertNotEqual = assert_ne
assertNotAlmostEqual = assert_almost_ne

I'm not sure if there are others, but using the same abbreviations from 
operator is consistent and readable and short, in my opinion.

-- 
Scott Dial
scott at scottdial.com
scodial at cs.indiana.edu