Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #89837
| From | Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Is this a good way to implement testing |
| Date | 2015-05-03 10:45 +0200 |
| Organization | None |
| References | <878ud6mx4y.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> <87383em7sn.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.53.1430642740.12865.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
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.
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.
$
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