[Python-ideas] Fwd: doctest
ethan at stoneleaf.us
Mon Feb 27 20:58:52 CET 2012
Mark Janssen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>> Anyway... of course patches welcome, yes... ;^)
>> Not really. doctest is for *testing code example in docs*.
> I understand. This is exactly what I was wanting to use it for. As
> Tim says "literate testing" or "executable documentation".
> The suggestions I made are for enhancing those two.
> Personally, I don't find unittest very suitable for test-driven
> *development*, although it *is* obviously well-suited for writing
> assurance tests otherwise.
I like unittest for TDD.
> The key difference, to me, is in that doctest promotes tests being
> written in order to have the *additional functionality* of
> documentation. That makes it fun since your getting "twice the
> value for the cost of one", and that alone is the major item which
> drives test-driven development (IMHO) within the spirit of python,
> otherwise unittest is rather bulky to write in and of itself.
unittest can be a bit bulky, but definitely worth it IMO, especially
when covering the corner cases.
I have not used doctest, but I can say that I strongly dislike having
more than one or two examples in a docstring. Having all possibilities
(including corner cases) in a separate file I am okay with (as that
would be documentation -- when I'm reading code I want to see code, and
I'll look up the docs if I have a question).
The other gripe I have (possibly easily fixed): my python prompt is
'-->' (makes email posting easier) -- should my doctests still use
'>>>'? Will doctest fail on my machine?
> Does anyone really use unittest outside the context of shop policy?
More information about the Python-ideas