[TIP] RFC: additional data in unittest TestResult outcomes

Robert Collins robertc at robertcollins.net
Tue Sep 22 04:38:31 PDT 2009

On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 11:31 +0100, Michael Foord wrote:
> This is really interesting Robert, but there is a lot of detail. Can
> you 
> provide an abstract / summary?

'allow more than just backtraces on test outcomes'.

> It seems to be a protocol for object serialisation on test results 
> composed of several parts.

I want to enable serialisation more than anything; this isn't a big
change to the library - TestResult stringify's backtraces today.

> Methods on TestResult for attaching information.

Outcomes - exactly what we have today - addFailure, addError, AddSkip,
addSuccess, addExpectedFailure etc, but given a new name as a migration
strategy [vs attempting with a new keyword argument or similar; we could
do it that way - I'm open].

> Standard ways of storing that information.

Not storing so much, as just being clear about it, so that folk who /do/
want to store or forward can do so with minimal loss of structure. e.g.
Tribunal should be able to get a detailed assertion from a Trial test
that fails, in a standard manner.

> A text serialisation protocol for communicating result information.

not at all :) but it should be trivial to write protocols with these
modifications. I don't want to obsolete Pandokia or Subunit - far from
it. I want to make unittest.py compatible with more of the capabilities
of these external tools, so they don't have to hack stuff around to get
data from test cases.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.idyll.org/pipermail/testing-in-python/attachments/20090922/43b3416d/attachment.pgp 

More information about the testing-in-python mailing list