X-FeedAbuse: http://nntpfeed.proxad.net/abuse.pl feeded by 78.192.65.63 Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!nntpfeed.proxad.net!news.muarf.org!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!border2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!bcyclone05.am1.xlned.com!bcyclone05.am1.xlned.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed2a.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.002 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'else:': 0.03; 'elif': 0.05; 'parameter': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'try:': 0.09; 'unhandled': 0.09; 'way:': 0.09; 'jan': 0.12; 'dict': 0.16; 'none.': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'reedy': 0.16; 'sys.exit(1)': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'print': 0.22; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'define': 0.26; 'equivalent': 0.26; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.27; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'testing': 0.29; 'code': 0.31; "skip:' 10": 0.31; 'usually': 0.31; 'factor': 0.31; 'keyerror:': 0.31; 'this.': 0.32; 'framework': 0.33; 'moment': 0.34; 'except': 0.35; 'test': 0.35; 'there': 0.35; 'project': 0.37; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'received:org': 0.40; 'needs,': 0.65; 'specialized': 0.65; 'believe': 0.68; 'subject:this': 0.83; 'duplication': 0.84; 'received:fios.verizon.net': 0.84; 'subject:good': 0.84; 'involved.': 0.91 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Terry Reedy Subject: Re: Is this a good way to implement testing Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 20:06:20 -0400 References: <878ud6mx4y.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-98-114-97-173.phlapa.fios.verizon.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 In-Reply-To: <878ud6mx4y.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20+ Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 39 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1430611594 news.xs4all.nl 2870 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:50805 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl X-Received-Bytes: 4178 X-Received-Body-CRC: 1157298520 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:89818 On 5/2/2015 6:29 PM, Cecil Westerhof wrote: > At the moment I define the test functionality in the following way: Any automated testing is better than none. For idlelib, I use unittest. For an individual project with specialized needs, I use a custom test framework tuned to those needs. > 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) There is usually a way to factor out the duplication of repetitive code like this. Often, a dict is somehow involved. I believe the following is equivalent to the above. else: action = options[0][0] try: globals()['do_'+action[2:]] = True except KeyError: print >> sys.stderr, progname + ': Unhandled parameter ' + action sys.exit(1) -- Terry Jan Reedy