Steve Howell wrote: > --- Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Steve Howell wrote: >>> --- Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>>> I think I would rewrite the current unit-testing >>>> example to use the >>>> standard library unittest module:: >>>> >>>> # Let's write reusable code, and unit test >> it. >>>> def add_money(amounts): >>>> # do arithmetic in pennies so as not to >>>> accumulate float errors >>>> pennies = sum([round(int(amount * 100)) >> for >>>> amount in amounts]) >>>> return float(pennies / 100.0) >>>> import unittest >>>> class TestAddMoney(unittest.TestCase): >>>> def test_float_errors(self): >>>> >> self.failUnlessEqual(add_money([0.13, >>>> 0.02]), 0.15) >>>> >> self.failUnlessEqual(add_money([100.01, >>>> 99.99]), 200) >>>> self.failUnlessEqual(add_money([0, >>>> -13.00, 13.00]), 0) >>>> if __name__ == '__main__': >>>> unittest.main() >>>> >>> Just a minor quibble, but wouldn't you want the >> import >>> and test class to only get executed in the >> ___main__ >>> context? >> That would be fine too. In the real world, I'd put >> the tests in a >> different module. >> > > Maybe this is the first good example that motivates a > hyperlink to alternatives. Would you accept the idea > that we keep my original example on the SimplePrograms > page, but we link to a UnitTestingPhilosophies page, > and we show your alternative there? Or vice versa, > show your example on the first page, but then show > mine on the hyperlinked page?
Sure. Either way is fine. STeVe -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
