Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #89814
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Is this a good way to implement testing |
| Date | 2015-05-03 00:17 +0100 |
| References | <878ud6mx4y.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.35.1430608701.12865.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On 02/05/2015 23:29, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> Still on my journey to learn Python.
>
> At the moment I define the test functionality in the following way:
> if __name__ == '__main__':
> keywords = [
> 'all',
> 'factorial',
> 'fibonacci',
> 'happy',
> 'lucky',
> ]
> keywords_msg = [
> '--all',
> '--factorial',
> '--fibonacci',
> '--happy',
> '--lucky',
> ]
> (options,
> extraParams) = getopt.getopt(sys.argv[1:], '', keywords)
> progname = split(sys.argv[0])[1]
>
> if len(options) > 1 or len(extraParams) != 0:
> error = '{0}: Wrong parameters ({1})'. \
> format(progname, ' '.join(sys.argv[1:]))
> usage = ' {0} {1}'.format(progname, ' | '.join(keywords_msg))
> print(error, file = sys.stderr)
> print(usage, file = sys.stderr)
> sys.exit(1)
>
> do_all = do_factorial = do_fibonacci = do_happy = do_lucky = False
> if len(options) == 0:
> do_all = True
> else:
> action = options[0][0]
> if action == '--all':
> do_all = True
> elif action == '--factorial':
> do_factorial = True
> elif action == '--fibonacci':
> do_fibonacci = True
> elif action == '--happy':
> do_happy = True
> elif action == '--lucky':
> do_lucky = True
> else:
> print >> sys.stderr, progname + ': Unhandled parameter ' + action
> sys.exit(1)
>
> if do_all or do_factorial:
> .
> .
> .
>
> Is this an acceptable way of working?
>
For code like the above I prefer the third party docopt module
https://github.com/docopt/docopt although you could also try
https://docs.python.org/3/library/argparse.html#module-argparse
The standard library unit testing framework is here
https://docs.python.org/3/library/unittest.html#module-unittest but also
see https://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonTestingToolsTaxonomy
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
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