Is this a good way to implement testing
Mark Lawrence
breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk
Sat May 2 19:17:56 EDT 2015
On 02/05/2015 23:29, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> Still on my journey to learn Python.
>
> At the moment I define the test functionality in the following way:
> if __name__ == '__main__':
> keywords = [
> 'all',
> 'factorial',
> 'fibonacci',
> 'happy',
> 'lucky',
> ]
> keywords_msg = [
> '--all',
> '--factorial',
> '--fibonacci',
> '--happy',
> '--lucky',
> ]
> (options,
> extraParams) = getopt.getopt(sys.argv[1:], '', keywords)
> progname = split(sys.argv[0])[1]
>
> if len(options) > 1 or len(extraParams) != 0:
> error = '{0}: Wrong parameters ({1})'. \
> format(progname, ' '.join(sys.argv[1:]))
> usage = ' {0} {1}'.format(progname, ' | '.join(keywords_msg))
> print(error, file = sys.stderr)
> print(usage, file = sys.stderr)
> sys.exit(1)
>
> do_all = do_factorial = do_fibonacci = do_happy = do_lucky = False
> if len(options) == 0:
> do_all = True
> else:
> action = options[0][0]
> if action == '--all':
> do_all = True
> elif action == '--factorial':
> do_factorial = True
> elif action == '--fibonacci':
> do_fibonacci = True
> elif action == '--happy':
> do_happy = True
> elif action == '--lucky':
> do_lucky = True
> else:
> print >> sys.stderr, progname + ': Unhandled parameter ' + action
> sys.exit(1)
>
> if do_all or do_factorial:
> .
> .
> .
>
> Is this an acceptable way of working?
>
For code like the above I prefer the third party docopt module
https://github.com/docopt/docopt although you could also try
https://docs.python.org/3/library/argparse.html#module-argparse
The standard library unit testing framework is here
https://docs.python.org/3/library/unittest.html#module-unittest but also
see https://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonTestingToolsTaxonomy
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
More information about the Python-list
mailing list