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$1@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <n0mtgj$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

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