[TIP] Python Testing book review

Olemis Lang olemis at gmail.com
Mon Mar 8 06:51:38 PST 2010

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Grig Gheorghiu <grig.gheorghiu at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you'll find broken code with typos in most technical books.

Unless the book itself relies on self-tested docs (and that's an
important use case for all those people who lost their mind and use
`doctest` ... even if some think they should say «help me, I have
written a test suite using nothing but string matching assertions,
what is wrong with me?!» ) . AFAICR that's how Hg book is written (and
IMHO that was a great decision ;o)

>I personally don't tend to judge a book by that alone.

Hmmmm ... in this case, I support the OP's opinion. Sometimes it's
frustrating (for me) when I try to find out what's going wrong with my
code and the examples in the book are broken .


> I thought the Python Testing book was very well organized and managed to explain some fairly difficult concepts such as mock testing in simple language, appropriate for a beginner's guide. Also, there aren't that many other Python books out there (none that I know of in fact) that cover unittest, doctest, nose and twill.
> My impression is that there's a lot of very good info for someone at a beginner or even intermediate level in testing in general and testing-in-Python in particular. The code examples show how to approach testing for your project, and even if they're not 100 percent correct, they still serve as a good starting point.

I really like the idea behind the book, and think it's useful though
... Good work, you guys ! (... but write doctests ... ;o)



Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/

Featured article:
On adding Hessian (RPC) support for Trac -

More information about the testing-in-python mailing list