A simpler test framework?
ben+bazaar at benfinney.id.au
Tue Jul 14 10:29:43 BST 2009
Jonathan Lange <jml at mumak.net> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Martin Pool<mbp at sourcefrog.net> wrote:
> > Doctest has a bit of a bad reputation at least around Canonical for
> >causing some testing antipatterns
> For the record, many people at Canonical think doctests are actually
> pretty good.
> Of course, they are wrong.
I think doctests are pretty good — for testing narrative examples
interspersed within documentation (“narrative tests”). That's a good
purpose, and doctest does it simply and well.
But narrative tests are horrible for unit testing.
\ “Those who write software only for pay should go hurt some |
`\ other field.” —Erik Naggum, in _gnu.misc.discuss_ |
More information about the bazaar