On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Gwildor Sok <[email protected]> wrote:
> Personally I'm a big fan of Py.test, simply because it's so simple and > Pythonic to use. Simple functions with simple assert statements. That's > all. For me this significantly lowers the threshold to write tests and > requires less effort, which in the end results in way more tests written in > Py.test than the testsuite Django is currently using. > This is an argument that I've never understood. Why is typing: class MyTestCase(TestCase): such a burden? Because once you've typed that, everything else in the class is "just a method". However, you also get the added benefit of test grouping, and if you've got common setup/teardown requirements, the class provides a place to put them. I know py.test has a lot of fans, but I'm seriously unconvinced by the "it's so easy to write tests" argument. For this proposal to be acceptable to core, it's going to need to start with a *comprehensive* analysis of why py.test is a better approach to take. Don't just assume everyone is on board. Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAJxq848t5Zk55FEd6_Fd4hMy4JqFV7yZg7wTn7sQbZpuM%2BHHig%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
