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

Scott Dial scott at scottdial.com
Wed Jul 16 04:27:59 CEST 2008

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

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list