[TIP] cleanUp for unittest
fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk
Fri Apr 3 10:32:38 PDT 2009
holger krekel wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 18:16 +0100, Michael Foord wrote:
>> C. Titus Brown wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 06:08:58PM +0100, Michael Foord wrote:
>>> -> There is a feature request for unittest that we add a 'cleanUp' list.
>>> -> This is a list of functions to call on exit of a test that can be added
>>> -> to in setUp or during test execution. The difference between this and
>>> -> tearDown is that if anything is in the cleanUp list they will be called
>>> -> *even* if setUp fails (which normally means tearDown is skipped).
>>> -> Is there consensus that adding this to unittest is a good thing? If
>>> -> there is then I will just do it...
>>> -> Should it be done before or after calling tearDown? I don't think it
>>> -> matters so long as it is documented.
>>> Doesn't matter to me, but I'm wondering... why a list of functions?
>> I should have listed the relevant issue: http://bugs.python.org/issue5538
>> The idea is that as you allocate resources that need cleaning up, you
>> push the corresponding clean up function onto the list. It is what trial
>> It sounds like a very simple system to me.
> hum, doesn't something like
> def setUp(self):
> express well enough what the poster wants to do?
> Or am i missing something?
It does but is an unacceptable solution because it changes the semantics
of the current behavior.
cleanUp is a solution that would meet his need without drastically
changing the way setUp and tearDown behave.
> I think that running teardown() only when setup() suceeded
> seems nice and simple. Adding more logic to unittest.py for
> handling "cleanUps" in addition to "teardDown"'s and explaining
> how this relates sounds relatively complicated to me.
Oh well, if there isn't some semblance of consensus then it's probably
not a good idea. :-)
> just my 2cents,
>> testing-in-python mailing list
>> testing-in-python at lists.idyll.org
More information about the testing-in-python