[TIP] Test functions with unittest2, reprise: philosophy

Victoria G. Laidler laidler at stsci.edu
Fri Mar 5 13:39:53 PST 2010

Thanks for your reply, Michael.
This point
> * unittest is opinionated about how you should do testing, and an 
> object oriented approach is what it thinks you should be doing. 
is interesting to me in that it doesn't seem particularly consistent 
with "unittest is the de facto standard" which I've frequently heard.

I'm more interested in getting people to write tests *at all* than in 
getting them to adopt a particular approach. Clearly we differ on this. :)

Regarding this point
> Testing can certainly be done in other ways - and I have no problem 
> with other tools being used for those techniques. unittest does *not* 
> intend to be a jack-of-all-trades. It does intend to be flexible 
> enough for other people to build interesting things on top of - as my 
> email was trying to demonstrate. 

in light of Jason's messages about nose yesterday, I was getting a 
pretty strong vibe of "we hardly need nose anyway since unittest2 has so 
many of its features." If unittest won't support testing with functions 
natively, then we will always need something more than unittest.


More information about the testing-in-python mailing list