[Python-Dev] Using more specific methods in Python unit tests
Benjamin Peterson
benjamin at python.org
Sat Feb 15 20:24:10 CET 2014
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014, at 10:12 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> Many Python tests were written a very long time before the unittest,
> using simple asserts. Then, when they have been ported to the unittest,
> asserts were replaced with the assert_ method and then with assertTrue.
> The unittest has a number of other methods to check for and report
> failure, from assertEqual, to more specific assertIs, assertIn,
> assertIsInstance, etc, added in 2.7. New methods provide better
> reporting in case of failure.
>
> I wrote a large patch which modifies the tests to use more specific
> methods [1]. Because it is too large, it was divided into many smaller
> patches, and separate issues were opened for them. At the moment the
> major part of the original patch has already been committed. Many thanks
> to Ezio for making a review for the majority of the issues. Some changes
> have been made by other people in unrelated issues.
>
> Although Raymond approved a patch for test_bigmem [2], his expressed the
> insistent recommendation not to do this. So I stop committing new
> reviewed patches. Terry recommended to discuss this in Python-Dev. What
> are your thoughts?
I tend to agree with Raymond. I think such changes are very welcome when
the module or tests are otherwise being changed, but on their on
constitute unnecessary churn.
More information about the Python-Dev
mailing list