[Python-Dev] Question over splitting unittest into a package
olemis at gmail.com
Mon Jan 4 15:24:05 CET 2010
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Martin (gzlist) <gzlist at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the quick response.
> On 30/12/2009, Benjamin Peterson <benjamin at python.org> wrote:
>> When I made that change, I didn't know that the __unittest "hack" was
>> being used elsewhere outside of unittest, so I felt fine replacing it
>> with another. While I still consider it an implementation detail, I
>> would be ok with exposing an "official" API for this. Perhaps
> Well, bazaar has had the trick for a couple of years, and googling
> around now turns up some other projects using it or thinking about it:
Add `dutest` and probably `nose` _ and ...
> Reinstating the old implementation (with the same name) would mean
> that existing code would keep working with Python 2.7
IOW ... if it is removed all the libraries will have to change and
check for the Py version and ... (probably not a big deal depending on
the details of the «solution»)
> but maybe a
> discussion could start about a new, less hacky, way of doing the same
I am strongly -1 for modifying the classes in «traditional» unittest
module _ (except that I am strongly +1 for the package structure
WITHOUT TOUCHING anything else ...) , and the more I think about it I
am more convinced ... but anyway, this not a big deal (and in the end
what I think is not that relevant either ... :o). So ...
> May not be worthwhile making life more complicated though,
> there aren't *that* many unittest-extending projects.
But every library extending `unittest` will do it or otherwise
not-so-useful error messages will be displayed
PS: Happy New Year ! BTW
..  [feature] nosexml should omit trace frames where `__unittest...
..  Assessment of unittest 2.7 API : new features and opinions
Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/
Free new ripit 1.3.3 Download - mac software -
More information about the Python-Dev