[TIP] Python Testing book review
olemis at gmail.com
Mon Mar 8 06:55:07 PST 2010
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:55 PM, C. Titus Brown <ctb at msu.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 01:52:19PM -0500, Jesse Noller wrote:
>> 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. I personally don't tend to judge a book by that alone. 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.
>> > Full disclosure: I know the author pretty well, he used to be part of the SoCal Piggies group.
>> However, in my experience Packt's books tend to suffer from some
>> pretty bad editing / checking. All it takes is a good reviewer to *run
>> the code* in the book. All of their books are feeling rushed, and I
>> feel bad for the authors, since it reflects on them.
> All it takes is a *good author* to run all the code in the book, first ;).
> I wrote some hacky little doctest-style code to make sure that the
> basic examples in my book worked. Highly recommended approach.
IMO it's a (50 | 50 ) responsibility for (author | reviewer) ...
especially for a book about testing in Python. Talking about doctest
=> should eat your own dog's food ...
Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/
On adding Hessian (RPC) support for Trac -
More information about the testing-in-python