Re: [Pyunit-interest] Feature Request: Cleanup Registry

[Jim F. <ji...@zo...>]

Steve Purcell wrote:
> Hi Jim,
> 
> Sorry for the slow response.
> 
> Interesting suggestion. I wonder about a couple of things.
> 
> Firstly, not every test would require every cleanup function to be
> called, so calling every function after every test seems a high
> price to pay for convenience. Imagine running 10,000 tests,
> where each block of 100 requires a single (but different) clean-up
> function: that's 1,000,000 cleanup function invocations instead
> of 10,000.

Good point.

> Secondly, I'm nervous about the notion of adding clean-up functions
> to the clean-up registry from 'outside' testing code, as in the
> example you provided. What if the test module is imported multiple
> times, e.g. by the unittest GUI?

Typically, the registrations would be done by application modules,
not test modules. Would the unittest GUI reload application modules?
That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

...


> Cleaning-up of component registries is to be done after every
> Zope test, as I understand things. In that case, I'd think
> a common base class for your Zope test cases is in order, with a
> standardised 'tearDown()' that all subclasses should call if they
> also implement a 'tearDown()' method. This is a safer solution, in
> my opinion.

That is the solution I'm using now. You are right, in that tests that are
*known* not to produce side-effects can avoid the extra clean up work.

> Or am I missing something?

Nope.

I like your scalability argument.

Thanks.

BTW, neither of your responses seem to have shown up in
the source forge mail archive.

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton           mailto:ji...@zo...       Python Powered!
CTO                  (888) 344-4332            http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation     http://www.zope.com       http://www.zope.org