[TIP] Test functions with unittest2, reprise: philosophy

Michael Foord fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk
Fri Mar 5 13:45:39 PST 2010

On 05/03/2010 21:39, Victoria G. Laidler wrote:
> [snip...]
> 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.

Hence the need for (and utility in) nose2.


> cheers,
> Vicki


READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

More information about the testing-in-python mailing list