[TIP] A rare philosophical thought
noah.gift at gmail.com
Sun Aug 3 08:28:04 PDT 2008
> I like it. The oft-cited 'boilerplate' is usually an import and a class
Compared to say doctest or nose, unittest feels like riding a 10 speed made
out of lead to me :)
> >> UNITTEST IS EVIL.
> I'm aware of no justification for that statement...
Well, I think even Guido mentioned that he is generally unhappy with some of
the Java APIs that Python copied. I am assuming unittest falls into this
category as well.
Additionally, I guess I personally have a problem with OO in general, as I
feel a lot of OO is boilerplate, but that is a totally separate issue :) I
do think there is some evil lurking in unittest because it tempts some
abstract the hell out it, and then all of a sudden you have think deeply
about how your test architecture is designed, and completely forget that
this is not even what you were trying to do in the first place, which is
simply test your code.
> > 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
> be made.
I would vote for something dirt simple like nose.
> testing-in-python mailing list
> testing-in-python at lists.idyll.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the testing-in-python