[Python-Dev] Using more specific methods in Python unit tests

Benjamin Peterson benjamin at python.org
Sat Feb 15 20:24:10 CET 2014

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014, at 10:12 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> Many Python tests were written a very long time before the unittest, 
> using simple asserts. Then, when they have been ported to the unittest, 
> asserts were replaced with the assert_ method and then with assertTrue. 
> The unittest has a number of other methods to check for and report 
> failure, from assertEqual, to more specific assertIs, assertIn, 
> assertIsInstance, etc, added in 2.7. New methods provide better 
> reporting in case of failure.
> I wrote a large patch which modifies the tests to use more specific 
> methods [1]. Because it is too large, it was divided into many smaller 
> patches, and separate issues were opened for them. At the moment the 
> major part of the original patch has already been committed. Many thanks 
> to Ezio for making a review for the majority of the issues. Some changes 
> have been made by other people in unrelated issues.
> Although Raymond approved a patch for test_bigmem [2], his expressed the 
> insistent recommendation not to do this. So I stop committing new 
> reviewed patches. Terry recommended to discuss this in Python-Dev. What 
> are your thoughts?

I tend to agree with Raymond. I think such changes are very welcome when
the module or tests are otherwise being changed, but on their on
constitute unnecessary churn.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list