[TIP] Test discovery for unittest

Michael Foord fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk
Sat Apr 4 06:23:28 PDT 2009

holger krekel wrote:
> [snip...]
> I think others did good postings and i agree (and also mailed
> so) that the current addCleanup suggestions make some sense to me.
> However, in Python voting style i'd say "-0" on it. 
> Why? I tried to give background for my views that 
> 1) unittest.py is maybe not the right place to drive larger scale tests. 

Do you mean that you don't think unittest is suitable for testing of 
large applications or large systems?

If so then could you elaborate? Of all the Python  test frameworks it is 
probably the most proven in this area of course.

If you don't mean this then I'm afraid I don't understand.
> 2) improving testing in python is best done outside the standard lib 

And a lot of progress has been made outside of the standard library. 
Test discovery is badly needed for unittest, and the addCleanup proposal 
is a relatively small change (and a good one I think) - hardly *major* 
innovation. :-)

> The "-0" also signals that none of these remarks is meant to
> prevents changes to unittest.py.  I understand and fully respect
> that people want to take a pragmatic approach and basically
> say: so much test code is using unittest.py style tests so
> let's evolve this standard mechanism so that newcomers have a
> richer and easier model for writing their tests.  And let's
> use a method that several test runners (including py.test, on
> a sidenote :) are successfully using.  Hum, maybe i am
> actually +0 :)  
> hope this clarifies things a bit. 

Ha. Cool. I'll take the +0. :-)



> cheers,
> holger


More information about the testing-in-python mailing list