Is this a good way to implement testing

[Cecil Westerhof]

Op Sunday 3 May 2015 00:29 CEST schreef Cecil Westerhof:

> 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?

Thanks for the tips. For most I have to read a ‘little’ first, so I
will not implement them immediately.
Another question. Is it acceptable to have it in the module itself, or
should I put it in something like test_<module>.py? The code for
testing is bigger as the code for the implementation, so I am leaning
to putting it in a separate file.

-- 
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof