On 5 Apr., 10:26, Aldo Cortesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, why did I re-write it? Well, I needed a test framework that didn't > have the deep flaws that unittest has. I needed good hierarchical > fixture management. I needed something that didn't instantiate test > suites automatically, freeing me to use inheritance more naturally > within my test suites.
I'm not entirely sure what you are claiming here. From source inspections I can see that TestSuite instances are instantiated by the TestLoader and you are free to derive from TestLoader, overwrite its methods and pass around another instance than defaultTestLoader ( or a fresh instance of TestLoader which is the same thing ). My impression is that unittest is bashed so much because it has Java style naming conventions i.e. for bike shading reasons not because people come up with a much improved way to create test frameworks or even understand what a framework is and create a new one just for applying a different default behaviour. The split into TestLoader, TestRunner, TestCase and TestSuite is pretty canonical and I still fail to see what can't be done with them and OO techniques. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
