Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #89846
| From | Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Subject | Re: Is this a good way to implement testing |
| Organization | Decebal Computing |
| References | <878ud6mx4y.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> <87383em7sn.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> <mailman.53.1430642740.12865.python-list@python.org> |
| Date | 2015-05-03 11:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87iocakn2f.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> (permalink) |
Op Sunday 3 May 2015 10:45 CEST schreef Peter Otten: > Cecil Westerhof wrote: > >> 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. > > Definitely use an established testing framework instead of rolling > your own, and definitely put it into a separate file -- by the time > there is good coverage the test code is usually much bigger than the > tested code. Yep, the module already has 370 lines of testing code and only 225 of working code. And I just started. > Be aware that there is also doctest which scans docstrings for text > resembling interactive Python sessions. Doctests are both tests and > usage examples, so I think it's good to put a few of these into the > module. Here's how it works: > > $ cat factorial.py > def factorial(n): > """Calculate the factorial 1 * 2 * ... * n. > >>>> factorial(0) > 1 >>>> factorial(1) > 1 >>>> factorial(10) > 3628800 """ return 1 $ python3 -m doctest factorial.py > ********************************************************************** > File "/home/peter/clpy/factorial.py", line 8, in factorial.factorial > Failed example: factorial(10) Expected: 3628800 Got: 1 > ********************************************************************** > 1 items had failures: 1 of 3 in factorial.factorial ***Test > Failed*** 1 failures. $ That looks very promising. But I use the test to verify the correctness and show the performance. Is that also possible? Or should I split those out. -- Cecil Westerhof Senior Software Engineer LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Is this a good way to implement testing Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-03 00:29 +0200
Re: Is this a good way to implement testing Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-05-03 00:17 +0100
Re: Is this a good way to implement testing Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-05-02 20:06 -0400
Re: Is this a good way to implement testing Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-05-02 20:58 -0700
Re: Is this a good way to implement testing Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-05-03 14:49 +1000
Re: Is this a good way to implement testing Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-03 09:36 +0200
Re: Is this a good way to implement testing Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-05-03 09:38 +0100
Re: Is this a good way to implement testing Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2015-05-03 10:45 +0200
Re: Is this a good way to implement testing Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-03 11:49 +0200
Re: Is this a good way to implement testing Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-05-03 11:21 +0100
Re: Is this a good way to implement testing Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-03 12:50 +0200
Re: Is this a good way to implement testing Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-05-03 18:52 +1000
Re: Is this a good way to implement testing Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2015-05-03 11:22 +0200
csiph-web