Re: [Pyunit-interest] comments on PyUnit

[Steve P. <ste...@ya...>]

Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
>   I notice that it still isn't calling TestCase.fail() in all the
> fail<Something>() methods -- were we still agreed on that?  I can make
> that change is needed.


I decided against that; the extra level of traceback output is unsightly.
The failure exception is now parameterised, and the framework is not written
such that it would be safe and/or desirable to override fail() in subclasses.


>  > The complete set of fail*() methods, together with their 'assert*'
>  > synonyms, is now:
>  > 
>  >    fail()
>  >    failIf()
> 
>   Since Guido's suggested we document both naming famillies, we should
> have a second name for this -- I suggest "assertNot()".


I also decided against this; fail() does not have a common-sense
'assert' counterpart, and 'assertNot' is better served by 'assert_(not expr)'
for those users who prefer 'assert*' to 'fail*'.

A bit of relevant background: JUnit lives quite happily with the following:

    fail()
    assert(expr)
    assertEquals(a,b)
    assertSame(a,b)

If I were starting PyUnit from scratch, I would provide only:

    fail()
    assert_(expr)
    assertEquals(a,b)
    assertRaises(exception,func,*args,**kwargs)

Best wishes,

-Steve

-- 
Steve Purcell, Pythangelist
Get testing at http://pyunit.sourceforge.net/
Any opinions expressed herein are my own and not necessarily those of Yahoo