[Python-Dev] setUpClass and setUpModule in unittest

[Olemis Lang]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Michael Foord
<fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
> On 11/02/2010 12:30, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> Michael Foord wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what response I expect from this email, and neither option
>>> will be implemented without further discussion - possibly at the PyCon
>>> sprints - but I thought I would make it clear what the possible
>>> directions are.
>>>
>>
>> I'll repeat what I said in the python-ideas thread [1]: with the advent
>> of PEP 343 and context managers, I see any further extension of the
>> JUnit inspired setUp/tearDown nomenclature as an undesirable direction
>> for Python to take.
>>
>> Instead, I believe unittest should be adjusted to allow appropriate
>> definition of context managers that take effect at the level of the test
>> module, test class and each individual test.
>>
>> For example, given the following method definitions in unittest.TestCase
>> for backwards compatibility:
>>
>>   def __enter__(self):
>>     self.setUp()
>>
>>   def __exit__(self, *args):
>>     self.tearDown()
>>
>> The test framework might promise to do the following for each test:
>>
>>   with get_module_cm(test_instance): # However identified
>>     with get_class_cm(test_instance): # However identified
>>       with test_instance: # **
>>         test_instance.test_method()
>>
>

What Nick pointed out is the right direction (IMHO), and the one I had
in mind since I realized that unittest extensibility is the key
feature that needs to be implemented . I even wanted to start a
project using this particular architecture to make PyUnit extensible.
It's too bad (for me) that I don't have time at all, to move forward
an just do it .

:(

I need days with 38 hrs !!! (at least)

:$

> Well that is *effectively* how they would work (the semantics) but I don't
> see how that would fit with the design of unittest to make them work
> *specifically* like that - especially not if we are to remain compatible
> with existing unittest extensions.
>

AFAICS (so not sure especially since there's nothing done to criticize
;o) is that backwards compatibility  is not the main stopper ...

> If you can come up with a concrete proposal of how to do this then I'm happy
> to listen. I'm not saying it is impossible, but it isn't immediately
> obvious. I don't see any advantage of just using context managers for the
> sake of it and definitely not at the cost of backwards incompatibility.
>

... but since I have nothing I can show you , everything is still in my mind ...

-- 
Regards,

Olemis.

Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/

Featured article:
Free milestone ranch Download - mac software  -
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TracGViz-full/~3/rX6_RmRWThE/