Unittest testing assert*() calls rather than methods?
roy at panix.com
Thu Sep 29 02:49:24 CEST 2011
In article <4e83b8e0$0$29972$c3e8da3$5496439d at news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
> If you are writing loops inside tests, you might find this anecdote useful:
On the other hand, the best test is one that gets written. I will often
write tests that I know do not meet the usual standards of purity and
wholesomeness. Here's a real-life example:
for artist in artists:
name = artist['name']
name = name.lower()
# Due to fuzzy matching, it's not strictly guaranteed that the
# following assertion is true, but it works in this case.
self.assertTrue(name.startswith(term), (name, term))
Could I have written the test without the loop? Probably. Would it
have been a better test? I guess, at some level, probably. And, of
course, the idea of a "not strictly guaranteed" assertion is probably
enough to make me lose my Unit Tester's Guild Secret Decoder Ring
But, the test was quick and easy to write, and provides value. I could
have spent twice as long writing a better test, and it would have
provided a little more value, but certainly not double. More
importantly, had I spent the extra time writing the better test, I might
have not had enough time to write all the other tests I wrote that day.
Sometimes good enough is good enough.
More information about the Python-list