[TIP] Unittest Changes
fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk
Mon Jul 21 16:19:32 PDT 2008
Pekka Laukkanen wrote:
> 2008/7/21 Michael Foord <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk>:
>> Pekka Laukkanen wrote:
>>> 1) Having assertions available as static methods in a separate module.
>>> This would a) make using them with other code easier, and b) make
>>> lines shorter since there would be no need for "self.". With JUnit 4
>>> and Java 5 you can do """import static org.junit.Assert.assertNull"""
>>> and this addition to Python would allow similar """from
>>> unittest.asserts import assertNone""".
>> Interesting idea. I wonder if it could be done without altering the
>> semantics of the existing API?
> There could either be a separate 'asserts' module or 'unittest' could
> become a higher level module with 'asserts' as a submodule. The latter
> change would require changing 'unittest.py' to 'unittest/__init__.py',
> but that should not break backwards compatibility. After adding
> 'asserts' (sub)module, assert methods in 'unittest.TestCase' could
> just call appropriate functions in 'asserts'.
Would be worth an experiment to see if it works.
> Nice that you like the idea. I've always wondered why
> 'unittest.TestCase' has those assert methods when in JUnit they are in
> separate class. 'unittest' is a pretty direct JUnit port (even
> according to its docs) so I wonder why the design has been changed.
>>> 2) Having PEP-8-style aliases for asserts. PEP-8 reminds that
>>> consistency within a module is most important, but now my test modules
>>> have inconsistent lines like
>>> """self.assertEquals(do_something_interesting, expected_value)""".
>>> Asserts can be also used with non-test code (and above point would
>>> make that even easier), and then adhering PEP-8 is even more
>> Off the table for standard library inclusion, see the BDFL pronouncement on
> Do you mean "Unittest PEP do's and don'ts (BDFL pronouncement)" ?
> It only mentions that old camelCase methods can't be removed and API
> can't change in backwards incompatible manner, but there's nothing
> about new PEP-8-style aliases. The Python-Dev discussion was too long
> for me to read fully, so I might have missed another pronouncement,
>  http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-July/081263.html
And this follow up:
> Presumably new methods should *not* follow PEP8 but be internally
> with the existing API?
PEP8'ification of unittest methods - old and new - really is off the
table for standard library inclusion (honestly).
> My suggestion to implement above ideas is this:
> 1) Create new 'asserts' module (either as top-level module or
> submodule of 'unittest')
> 2) Add only PEP-8 style static functions to 'asserts'.
> 3) Add only one version of each assert function (i.e. only
> 'assert_equal' favored by BDFL and not 'fail_unless_equal' or
> 4) Change 'unittest.TestCase' so that its assert methods use functions
> from 'asserts'.
> 5) Add new assert functions to 'asserts' in PEP-8 format and have
> matching assert method in 'unittest.TestCase' in camelCase format.
> This wouldn't change the existing 'unittest.TestCase' API, would allow
> new code to use PEP-8 style asserts, and would make it easy to use
> asserts with other tools than 'unittest'. Implementation would also be
> more or less trivial. How does it sound?
More information about the testing-in-python