Vinay Sajip <vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk> added the comment:
@Brett: I've no religious/dogmatic objection to mocking, either, so I agree
with your comment. I merely observed that it's not generally implemented in the
Python test suite (not that I've made an exhaustive study of it, so I'm open to
being corrected on this point). Also, I don't see much value in some of the
low-level tests in the patch. For example: logging.disable is defined as
def disable(level):
"""
Disable all logging calls less severe than 'level'.
"""
root.manager.disable = level
The test for it is:
def test_disable(self):
disableBackup = logging.root.manager.disable
logging.disable(10)
self.assertEqual(logging.root.manager.disable, 10)
logging.root.manager.disable = disableBackup
which is really just testing at a low level - that the attribute was set - but
not more usefully, at a higher level, the practical effect of the disable call.
I appreciate the value that tests bring, but I'm just being a bit wary of
letting the tail wag the dog too much in the interests of higher coverage ;-)
So, I suppose my test case preferences tend more towards an acceptance test
style rather than a "pure" unit test style.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue11332>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
