unittest wart/bug for assertNotEqual

Zac Burns zac256 at gmail.com
Tue Oct 20 23:45:49 CEST 2009


> I was with you right up to the last six words.
>
> Whether it's worth changing assertNotEqual to be something other than an
> alias of failIfEqual is an interesting question. Currently all the
> assert* and fail* variants are aliases of each other, which is easy to
> learn. This would introduce a broken symmetry, where assertNotEqual tests
> something different from failIfEqual, and would mean users have to learn
> which assert* methods are aliases of fail* methods, and which are not.
> I'm not sure that's a good idea.
>
> After all, the documentation is clear on what it does:
>
>     |  assertNotEqual = failIfEqual(self, first, second, msg=None)
>     |      Fail if the two objects are equal as determined by the '=='
>     |      operator.
>     |
>
>
> (Taken from help(unittest).)
>
>
>
> --
> Steven
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>

My preference would be that failIfEqual checks both != and ==. This is
practical, and would benefit almost all use cases. If "!=" isn't "not
==" (IEEE NaNs I hear is the only known use case) then those could
simply not use this method.

It would not surprise me if changing this would bring to light many
existing bugs.

--
Zachary Burns
(407)590-4814
Aim - Zac256FL
Production Engineer (Digital Overlord)
Zindagi Games



More information about the Python-list mailing list