assert versus print [was Re: The curious behavior of integer objects]

[Calvin Spealman]

On 1/15/07, Steven D'Aprano <steve at removeme.cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:38:42 -0500, Calvin Spealman wrote:
>
> > On 1/15/07, Steven D'Aprano <steve at removeme.cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:50:56 -0500, Calvin Spealman wrote:
> >>
> >> > assert foo(0x10) == 0  # Assertions are much better tests than prints :-)
> >>
> >> I dispute that assertion (pun intended).
> >
> > Hah!
> >
> >> Firstly, print statements work even if you pass the -O (optimize) flag
> >> to Python. Your asserts don't.
> >
> > This is true, but the concept can be adapted to a things like an
> > assert_() function.
>
> Hence defeating the optimization :)
>
> So what you're saying is, some custom function that you write yourself is
> better than print? I suppose I can't argue with that :)
>
>
> >> Secondly, a bare assertion like that gives you very little information:
> >> it just tells you that it failed:
> >>
> >> >>> x = 1
> >> >>> assert x == 0
> >> Traceback (most recent call last):
> >>   File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
> >> AssertionError
> >>
> >> To provide the same information that print provides, you need something
> >> like this:
> >>
> >> assert x == 0, "x == %s not 0" % x
> >
> > What information would I need to know if my test passed? Nothing, I say.
>
> Maybe. But then it is hard to tell the difference between "my test
> function printed nothing because it is broken, and my test function
> printed nothing because it succeeded".
>
> There are good arguments both for and against successful tests printing a
> result. Keep in mind that a successful assert doesn't actually print
> "nothing" in the interactive interpreter: when it completes, you do get
> feedback because Python prints a prompt. Getting feedback that the test
> completed successfully is vital. The only question is whether that
> feedback should be minimal or verbose.
>
> But in any case, you have misunderstood the assertion. The error message
> is printed *if the assert fails*, not if it passes.
>
>
> > I only want to know when the tests fail, especially as I add more of
> > them. Having no output is a great way to know nothing puked.
>
> Sure -- for unit testing. For interactive exploration, seeing the value of
> a variable is better than guessing. That's why a bare object reference in
> the interactive interpreter prints itself, but in a script does nothing.

1) I was trying to nudge the OP towards unit testing
2) if you look at the printed verson of an object you are as much
guessing as you would with an assert and no output
3) It was just an arbitrary statement and although I stand by it, is
it worth this much discussion?

> --
> Steven D'Aprano
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>


-- 
Read my blog! I depend on your acceptance of my opinion! I am interesting!
http://ironfroggy-code.blogspot.com/