Re: skipping one unittest assertion?

X-FeedAbuse	http://nntpfeed.proxad.net/abuse.pl feeded by 88.191.16.109
Path	csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!nntpfeed.proxad.net!nospam.fr.eu.org!usenet-fr.net!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!news.glorb.com!news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
From	Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Subject	Re: skipping one unittest assertion?
References	<roy-880487.10134901052011@news.panix.com> <87wriah4qg.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <roy-1458D0.11552901052011@news.panix.com>
X-Public-Key-ID	0xAC128405
X-Public-Key-Fingerprint	517C F14B B2F3 98B0 CB35 4855 B8B2 4C06 AC12 8405
X-Public-Key-URL	http://www.benfinney.id.au/contact/bfinney-pubkey.asc
X-Post-From	Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au>
Date	Mon, 02 May 2011 07:45:26 +1000
Message-ID	<87k4eagknd.fsf@benfinney.id.au> (permalink)
User-Agent	Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock	sha1:uHfRHaO9ELGy/cH0cVCupX/wWcY=
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding	8bit
Lines	29
Organization	Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host	cb4ab83a.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace	DXC=@?82W9B:]P`JRZZkg^aP1jL?0kYOcDh@j7^o:UA4R?ceG;jTe9??mMi]G;2>V^?kWcbEW9A[5UK?eNZ[SL`C\KgcAERDGBfL:Tg
Xref	x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:4418

Show key headers only | View raw

Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> writes:

>  Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>
> > Each test case should be testing one thing: if it fails, it should be
> > for exactly one reason.
>
> Well, yeah, that's certainly the XP/unit-test doctrine. In practice
> however, tests often get written as "do a bunch of stuff to get some
> result, then make a bunch of assertions about that result".

And the result is an increasingly-difficult maintenance burden for the
test suite, as you've discovered.

> Sure, you could make each of those assertions a distinct method, and 
> factor the "do a bunch of stuff" into setUp().  Which probably means 
> factoring those methods out into a new TestCase subclass.  At some 
> point, however practicality trumps doctrine.

Yet practicality, i.e. making your test cases manageable, is exactly
what you don't have with your current approach. I'm not quoting doctrine
at you; I'm saying that *because of problems like you're encountering*,
you should refactor your test cases to do one test per case.

-- 
 \        “Absurdity, n. A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent |
  `\            with one's own opinion.” —Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's |
_o__)                                                Dictionary_, 1906 |
Ben Finney

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

skipping one unittest assertion? Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-05-01 10:13 -0400
  Re: skipping one unittest assertion? Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-05-02 00:31 +1000
    Re: skipping one unittest assertion? Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-05-01 11:55 -0400
      Re: skipping one unittest assertion? Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-05-02 07:45 +1000
  Re: skipping one unittest assertion? "OKB (not okblacke)" <brenNOSPAMbarn@NObrenSPAMbarn.net> - 2011-05-01 18:14 +0000
    Re: skipping one unittest assertion? Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-05-01 14:16 -0400
      Re: skipping one unittest assertion? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-02 06:51 +1000

csiph-web