[TIP] Functions for tests instead of classes

Pekka Klärck peke at iki.fi
Mon Mar 15 11:42:14 PDT 2010

2010/3/15 Michael Foord <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk>:
> On 15/03/2010 17:46, Pekka Klärck wrote:
>> [snip...]
>>> Then, to retain compatibility with older versions of unittest, the
>>> TestCase
>>> object can contain a bunch of trivial methods like:
>>>   def assertEqual(self, a, b) :
>>>      return assertEqual(a,b)
>> Yep, keeping backwards compatibility would be trivial. Are there any
>> good reasons not to do this?
> Per TestCase failureException is one reason.

How, and how often, is this functionality actually used? Would you be
OK with the change if there was a way to keep it? Or could we simple
have asserts in a separate module and not touch TestCase at all?

Agile Tester/Developer/Consultant :: http://eliga.fi
Lead Developer of Robot Framework :: http://robotframework.org

More information about the testing-in-python mailing list