ANN: pry unit testing framework

Terry Reedy tjreedy at
Sat Apr 5 18:26:51 CEST 2008

"Steve Holden" <steve at> wrote in message 
news:ft84g9$ola$1 at
| Aldo Cortesi wrote:
| > Thus spake Kay Schluehr (kay.schluehr at

**tweet** <Time out>

| >> 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 -

Yes, Guido gets attacked too.

| > maybe I'll think twice about doing so next time.

As did I.  But I hope you continue to share.

| > 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 and anti-hyping it for mostly trivial
| >> reasons and with shallow reasoning has become a fashion.

Let's see..  Aldo shares his project.  Someone asks why he did what he did. 
He explains.  And you call this raving.  To me, that is unfair and a 
mischaracterization of his intent and action.

|>>  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 ).

The real proof would be code that does what you claim.

| >> I just felt it was a good opportunity to debunk this anti-
| >> hype. I'm sorry it has gone too personal.

I gather that you were irritated at 'raving anti-hype' before 
Aldo wrote a word here.  Perhaps 'debunking' would go better in a separate 
thread that was not aimed at anyone in particular.

| > 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.

Steve, Kay is the one who started and repeated 'unpleasantly personal 
replies'.  You should better have addressed her.

| 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.

So you, as an old-timer, excuse the old-timer for starting a spat and scold 
the newcomer for responding.  To me, that smells.

**Tweet** <Time in>

Terry Jan Reedy
Another old-timer, with a long history of contributions also.

More information about the Python-list mailing list