<div dir="ltr">Considering that inner classese are relatively rare in python, I'd go for the inner-classes being tested in the main class's unit test. If the user doesn't want the inner class tested, she can just delete the stubs.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 12:21 AM, Paul Hildebrandt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Paul.Hildebrandt@disneyanimation.com">Paul.Hildebrandt@disneyanimation.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
You're right, I should have said inner classes.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
Jonathan Lange wrote:<br>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Paul Hildebrandt<br>
> <<a href="mailto:Paul.Hildebrandt@disneyanimation.com">Paul.Hildebrandt@disneyanimation.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Michal and I were musing on how to handle unit testing subclasses in<br>
>> pythoscope (<a href="http://pythoscope.org" target="_blank">http://pythoscope.org</a>). We were thinking about them in two<br>
>> ways.<br>
>> 1. They are internal to the class and some people may not want them tested.<br>
>> 2. They should be treated like a method in that they will be tested in<br>
>> the main classes unit test.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
> It sounds like you are talking about inner classes, not subclasses.<br>
><br>
> Do you mean:<br>
><br>
> class Foo:<br>
> "a thing"<br>
><br>
> class Bar(Foo):<br>
> "a subthing"<br>
><br>
> or:<br>
><br>
> class Foo:<br>
> "a foo"<br>
><br>
> class Bar:<br>
> "a bar in a foo"<br>
><br>
> ?<br>
><br>
> jml<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
testing-in-python mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:testing-in-python@lists.idyll.org">testing-in-python@lists.idyll.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/testing-in-python" target="_blank">http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/testing-in-python</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>=====<br>--Ryan E. Freckleton<br>
</div>