[TIP] A rare philosophical thought
fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk
Sun Aug 3 07:56:55 PDT 2008
Ben Finney wrote:
> "C. Titus Brown" <ctb at msu.edu> writes:
>> And let me say,
>> I HATE UNITTEST.
> I love the fact that it exists and works as advertised.
I like it. The oft-cited 'boilerplate' is usually an import and a class
At Resolver Systems we've built on unittest to create a distributed
testing framework that pushes tests out onto several machines on a
network, publishing results (and tracebacks) to a web application that
allows you to view them whilst the test run is still going.
Creating custom test runners and result formatters on top of unittest
wasn't particularly problematic - although that architecture could
probably do with some simplifying.
>> UNITTEST IS EVIL.
I'm aware of no justification for that statement...
> The many good points of the standard library unittest module have
> allowed me to write far better Python code than I would otherwise have
> written. It's not evil in my view.
> It's ugly. It's crufty. It's not PEP-8-conformant. It's mostly
> unmaintained. It can lead to rather baroque unit test modules. But it
> also has many good features, and I don't think any of the bad ones
> make it "evil".
>> UNITTEST NEEDS TO BE REPLACED.
> Entirely agreed on this point. I think, though, that you'll find
> little immediate consensus on what to replace it with :-)
Personally I disagree - although there are obvious improvements that can
More information about the testing-in-python