[TIP] RFF: Article on python test design pattern - DAI
olemis at gmail.com
Tue Dec 8 07:13:44 PST 2009
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:55 AM, <exarkun at twistedmatrix.com> wrote:
> On 04:07 am, amax at redsymbol.net wrote:
>> (that's Request For Feedback)
>> Hi everyone,
>> Here is a draft article about a useful design pattern for Python code
>> I am surely not the first to use this idiom, but I *might* be the first to
>> document it this well, and to give it a name. Have you seen this before?
>> Constructive feedback is appreciated.
>> Thanks in advance for your comments. Either reply here on the list, or by
>> email to amax at redsymbol.net.
> Hi Aaron,
> This has the shortcoming that it's harder to use the failure to pinpoint the
> exact code which is wrong, though. It'd be nice to have some tools to make
> it easy to combine the advantages of each of these approaches. For example,
> a non-exception based failure signaling mechanism,
Hmmmm ... if something failed in your (unit)tests then it should be an
exception condition (considering unittest philosophy and | or style
since you write «positive» test cases i.e. conditions that have be
asserted in to make the TC pass) . Isn't it ?
> or a stack capturing
> helper which allows for easy annotation of later assertions.
Little comment :
Modules that contain __unittest = True are hidden in failure
tracebacks . Is this what you 'r talking about ?
Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/
More information about the testing-in-python