Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 20:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.730.1347679967.27098.python-list@python.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=67.184.78.189; posting-account=MQ3pigoAAACeFzUFjVAePnOjOJMNlvq9
References: <e0d36274-3345-4eeb-bc0a-9da283b9778f@googlegroups.com> <CA+vVgJXBJJaMA-cocmTtHQbAr8WiF=_QoFmCnpXQ1C6GuFgiFA@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.730.1347679967.27098.python-list@python.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: unit test strategy
From: Aaron Brady <castironpi@gmail.com>
To: comp.lang.python@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: python-list@python.org
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <mailman.779.1347766616.27098.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 124
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:29279

On Friday, September 14, 2012 10:32:47 PM UTC-5, David Hutto wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> w=
rote:
>=20
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Aaron Brady <castironpi@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
>=20
> >> Hello,
>=20
> >>
>=20
> >> I've developing a test script.  There's a lot of repetition.  I want t=
o introduce a strategy for approaching it, but I don't want the program to =
be discredited because of the test script.  Therefore, I'd like to know wha=
t people's reactions to and thoughts about it are.
>=20
> >>
>=20
> >> The first strategy I used created an iterator and advanced it between =
each step:
>=20
> >
>=20
> > That isn't a refined iterator below:
>=20
> What I mean is look at the similarities, and the differences, then
>=20
> replace the differences with interpolation, in eval even.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >
>=20
> >>         self.op_chain(range(5), ('add', 5))
>=20
> >>         self.op_chain(range(5), ('add', -2), ('add', -1))
>=20
> >>         self.op_chain(range(5), ('discard', -1), ('add', 5))
>=20
> >>         self.op_chain_ok(range(5), ('update', [0, 1]))
>=20
> >> Etc.
>=20
> >>
>=20
> >> I'm considering something more complicated.  'iN' creates iterator N, =
'nN' advances iterator N, an exception calls 'assertRaises', and the rest a=
re function calls.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> iN =3D [N for N in range(0,5)]
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >>         dsi=3D dict.__setitem__
>=20
> >>         ddi=3D dict.__delitem__
>=20
> >>         dsd=3D dict.setdefault
>=20
> >>         KE=3D KeyError
>=20
> >>         IE=3D IterationError
>=20
> >>         self.chain(range(10), 'i0', (dsi, 0, 1), 'n0', (dsi, 10, 1), (=
IE, 'n0'))
>=20
> >>         self.chain(range(10), 'i0', 'n0', (dsd, 0, 0), 'n0', (dsd, 10,=
 1), (IE, 'n0'))
>=20
> >>         self.chain(range(10), 'i0', (KE, ddi, 10), 'n0', (ddi, 9), (IE=
, 'n0'))
>=20
> >>
>=20
> >> Do you think the 2nd version is legible?  Could it interfere with the =
accuracy of the test?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Define the 2nd version
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >
>=20
> > Show the test, which should show instances of what you want called.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > I could rewrite the above, but it seems you're more in need of refining
>=20
> > your iterations, and the values given within them.
>=20
> >
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
>=20
> Best Regards,
>=20
> David Hutto
>=20
> CEO: http://www.hitwebdevelopment.com

Hi David,

I'm interested in your comments, but I had difficulty interpreting them.  W=
hat I want to know is, do people think that the 2nd version I presented wou=
ld be a more effective test script?

Do you think it would be more useful to run the tests in the function call =
directly?  Or would it be more useful to output a program script and then r=
un that?  Is there some risk that the direct test would interfere with the =
results?  And, is the 2nd version legible?  That is, is it easy for other p=
rogrammers to tell what the purpose and actual effects of a given test are?