unittest unpythonic? [Was: Re: Tidying up]

[Jo Vermeulen]

Op 26-apr-05 om 01:27 heeft Jason Diamond het volgende geschreven:

> Martin Pool wrote:
>
>>  I guess unittest is not all that bad, but it just seems a bit
>>  dependent on defining lots of classes, which is more of a Java or
>>  Smalltalk style than Python.
>
> I used JUnit, CPPUnit, and NUnit before unittest so maybe that's why I 
> don't see anything "wrong" with unittest. Technically, you only have 
> to create one class to hold your test cases if that's all you need. 
> But being able to group tests that rely on common set-up and tear-down 
> code is not only convenient but necessary once your test suite gets 
> past a certain size. What else would you want to use besides classes 
> to do this grouping?
>
> As a way of getting up to speed on a project, I like to peruse the 
> unit tests. When there aren't any (as there often aren't), I like to 
> explore the code by writing unit tests for them. Would you be 
> interested in those types of contributions?
>
> Of course, the real benefit in writing unit tests comes when you write 
> them before you write your code but writing them after the fact is 
> still better than not having any at all. :-)

I agree having tests that fail does encourage and motivate you more to 
fix things.

Kind regards,

-- 
Jo Vermeulen <jo at lumumba.luc.ac.be>
http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo/