Re: Unittests and serial workflows

Path	csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	Fabien <fabien.maussion@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Subject	Re: Unittests and serial workflows
Date	Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:05:49 +0100
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines	16
Message-ID	<n1010b$mdn$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<n0mtgj$dag$1@speranza.aioe.org> <87twpcvnph.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host	7enzztBGJd0gGagiyEQsEg.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-Complaints-To	abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
X-Notice	Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.python:98003

Show key headers only | View raw

On 10/27/2015 07:18 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
>> >     def test_b(self):
>> >         tmp = A()
>> >         out = B(tmp)
>> >         self.assertStuffs(out)
> It's better to avoid that.  Write B so that it doesn't require input to
> actually come from A, but rather, write or generate some other sample
> input.  Then test B separately from A.  Then afterwards you can have
> function C that calls both, and put a test case through that.

Thanks for your thoughts. I am not sure that this is always possible in 
my case, but I see what you mean.

Cheers,

Fabien

Thread

Unittests and serial workflows Fabien <fabien.maussion@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 05:10 +0100
  Re: Unittests and serial workflows Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-26 23:18 -0700
    Re: Unittests and serial workflows Fabien <fabien.maussion@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 16:05 +0100
      Re: Unittests and serial workflows Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-30 09:23 -0700
  Re: Unittests and serial workflows Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-10-31 12:28 +1100

csiph-web