[TIP] Docstrings in Test methods
alfredodeza at gmail.com
Sat Nov 5 09:30:24 PDT 2011
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Ned Batchelder <ned at nedbatchelder.com> wrote:
> On 11/5/2011 9:05 AM, Mike Pirnat wrote:
>> I work in a pretty big codebase with a lot of developers. We prefer
>> not having a docstring on our tests so that when they do fail, we can
>> quickly identify what test it is (and who the best people to fix it
>> are going to be).
>> Our compromise in the sake of explaining a test is to use a comment
>> where we would otherwise have a docstring in production code.
>> I would be all for using docstrings for consistency with our
>> production code if the test runner wouldn't replace the test
>> module/class/method with the docstring in its output.
> I completely agree. I use comments in test methods rather than docstrings.
> BTW: the line from my slides was about product code, not test code:
> Sometimes a real stumbling block to testing is that you have to decide what
> your product code actually does. Once you figure that out, it's a good idea
> to write it down in the docstrings.
Ah, I knew that this could be read in that sense as well. At least,
when Michael Foord discussed
this one slide with me he thought the same.
More information about the testing-in-python