Ezio Melotti added the comment: A few comments about the patch: 1) I would prefer a more explicit idle_test instead of Itest (assuming "I" means idle); 2) having idle_test in Lib/test would be better if possible (see #10572); 3) the tests should only be in idle_test, and not in the "if __name__ == '__main__':" of the files; 4) I'm not sure the @template file is necessary. It could be documented somewhere else though (see e.g. http://docs.python.org/3/library/test.html#writing-unit-tests-for-the-test-package).
IOW putting all tests in a separate dir is a good thing, and the dir could either be in Lib/test or in Lib/idlelib. All the tests should be inside this dir, except for Lib/test/test_idle.py that should be the entry point used to run all the tests in idle_test (see e.g. the tests for ctypes, email, and json). Individual tests in idle_test can be run on their own, and they should use the "if __name__ == '__main__': unittest.main()" idiom. > Question: "Unittest supports skipping individual test > methods and even whole classes of tests" How about skipping > (possibly conditionally) an entire file -- especially test_idle, > which has no classes, or and test_xxx with multiple classes? You can raise unittest.SkipTest or use support.import_module(). This works fine if you run the tests through regrtest, but be aware that unittest itself only sees this as a skip from 3.4 (see #16935). > * Exceptions raised outside of self.assertXyz (and self.fail) > calls are regarded as an error in the test code rather than a > failure of the code tested (26.3.4. Organizing test code). > So, there being no 'assertNotRaises' context manager, I added > "try:...except ...: self.fail()" to test_pathbrowser.py so a > failure will be reported as such and not as an error. If > there is a better way to do this, let me know. If it's supposed to work the try/except is not necessary IMHO. By this logic every line of code should be wrapped in a try/except :) > Since 3.x chains exceptions and prints the original traceback, > no message argument is needed with self.fail to explain the > failure. For 2.7, I believe one should be added. If you still want to keep the try/except, I would provide a meaningful failure message in any case. > Note: to empirically test that a test fails properly, it must > be run with code that does not work properly. This is a > problem with writing tests after the fact for code that works > properly. It's not difficult to break the code to test that test works though :) > I checked all 62 idlelib/*.py files for a test to see what we > have to work with: the answer is 'not much'. Less than half > the files have a test. If possible I think these should all be moved to idle_test. You can also add an additional resource to regrtest to skip the ones that require manual intervention. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue15392> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
