[TIP] Meta-test methods...

C. Titus Brown ctb at msu.edu
Wed Apr 22 22:14:19 PDT 2009

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 01:08:16AM -0400, Douglas Philips wrote:
-> On 2009 Apr 22, at 3:10 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
-> > Yes, nose supports test generators. They're the balls.
-> UGH. Duplicate code and hacks that make generators special.
-> They're turds.


Nose is ugly inside for various good reasons (one being unittest
backwards compatibility, making it compatible with 'python setup.py
test', which is +1 in my book).  But, err, it really works quite well.
It's an excellent example of pushing nasty-but-necessary complexity
somewhere else and once you drop the proper LSD it is, as Jesse says,
the balls.

(Jesse, I've been meaning to ask -- is "the balls" *good*??)

Were you pointing at some other code?

Anyway, I double-dare you to make this:


work nicely without decorators.

-> I'm now convinced that explicit use of decorators is the right way to  
-> go.

...says the man not supporting python2.3 ;)

-> Maybe, just maybe, a naming convention that would parallel the  
-> unittest notion of all methods starting with the name 'test' would be  
-> acceptable.

I musta missed something.  That's exactly what nose (and py.test) do.

-> Really glad I'm not using nose.


C. Titus Brown, ctb at msu.edu

More information about the testing-in-python mailing list