ANN: pry unit testing framework

Steve Holden steve at holdenweb.com
Sat Apr 5 17:05:12 CEST 2008


Aldo Cortesi wrote:
> Thus spake Kay Schluehr (kay.schluehr at gmx.net):
> 
>> Aldo, when you confuse inheritance ( using an OO framework properly )
>> with monkey patching no one can draw much different conclusions than I
>> did.
> 
> I guess you do always run the risk of being pelted with something from
> the peanut gallery when you release something in public - maybe I'll
> think twice about doing so next time. 
> 
> The only "confused" person here is you - I still say that it is NOT
> possible to provide the functionality Pry does by extending unittest in
> any sane way. Now, if you don't agree with this, please prove me wrong
> through reasoned argument or shut up. Do NOT, however, accuse me of not
> knowing what inheritance or monkeypatching is unless you want to look
> stupid and make my killfile. 
> 
>> But raving against unittest.py and anti-hyping it for mostly trivial
>> reasons and with shallow reasoning has become a fashion. Now we see
>> alternatives that do little more than what can be achieved by adding
>> two abstract methods to the TestSuite base class and overwrite a few
>> methods of the TestLoader base class ( maybe I'm wrong about it but I
>> guess the discussion has become too heated to clarify this point using
>> technical arguments ).
>>
>> I just felt it was a good opportunity to debunk this unittest.py anti-
>> hype. I'm sorry it has gone too personal.
> 
> You can choose to use Pry or not, as you please. I would, however, ask
> that you stop whining incessantly about how it's not compatible with
> YOUR favourite framework, despite the fact that compatibility would
> gain YOU very little and ME nothing at all. As I said in my response to
> Michele, you lose the benefits of compatibility as soon as your tests
> use any of the features an extension might add. To me, this means the
> burden is not worth it. Since I designed and wrote Pry, I get to make
> that choice, not you, and the type of feeble, offensive "argument"
> you've provided is unlikely to change my mind.
> 
Unpleasantly personal replies of this type are unwelcome here. Please 
restrict your arguments to technical ones or refrain from posting.

Kay at least has a long history as a contributor in this group, so 
people know how to interpret her remarks and know that her contributions 
are made on the basis of a deep understanding of Python. She is far from 
belonging to the "peanut gallery", and to suggest otherwise betrays 
either ignorance, arrogance, or both.

As a newcomer, however, your responses make you seem to be complaining 
that the world isn't grateful for your contributions, yet you don't seem 
to even consider the possibility that might be happening because you 
aren't explaining them well enough. To truculently suggest that reasoned 
responses make you less likely to contribute to open source in future 
suggests that you weren't ready to start in the first place.

This group is a "broad church" that respects opinions of all kinds, and 
you will find that you are just as welcome as everyone else if you can 
confirm to accepted standard of behavior. Don't take things too 
personally (even when someone accuses you of "raving" - nobody said you 
are a bad person).

regards
  Steve
-- 
Steve Holden        +1 571 484 6266   +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC              http://www.holdenweb.com/




More information about the Python-list mailing list