[TIP] Test functions with unittest2, reprise: philosophy

[Mark Sienkiewicz]

Michael Foord wrote:
>
> So if unittest based testing is already so easy there is no need for 
> an alternative approach then. :-)
>
> To be honest I've had this same conversation quite a few times and, no 
> disrespect to yourself, am getting a little bored of it. I don't 
> particularly want to get drawn into a long debate, so please forgive 
> me if this is my last reply on this particular topic.

Whether you intended it that way or not, your answer to Vicki looks like 
it is heavily based on opinion.  As the author of the package, you're 
entitled to be as opinionated (your word) as you want.  But I'm not the 
only one who likes test functions, so you probably have not heard the 
last of it.  Each time a new person comes to unittest2, there is a 
chance that they will wonder why you left them out.

If you're tired of explaining it, I suggest you add a FAQ section to the 
unittest2 web page and paste your answer into the question "Why doesn't 
unittest2 have test functions?"  Then next time somebody asks about it, 
you can write the stock answer "There is an explanation at 
http://....".  They can read it and see the explanation, along with why 
you don't want to have to explain it again.

Mark S.