On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:12:14 +0200, Nikolaus Rath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:26:09 +0200, Nikolaus Rath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:35:55 +0200, Nikolaus Rath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>Hello, >>>>> >>>>>I have a number of conceptually separate tests that nevertheless need >>>>>a common, complicated and expensive setup. >>>>> >>>>>Unfortunately, unittest runs the setUp method once for each defined >>>>>test, even if they're part of the same class as in
... > Yeah, well, I guess that would work. But to me this looks really more > like a nasty hack.. isn't there a proper solution? [Someone described elsewhere in the thread how it's xUnit's philosophy to have one environment per executed test.] One option is to look into other unit test tools. People sometimes mention "py.test" as being superior. I haven't tried it -- I'm just a slightly dissatisfied unittest user. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unit_testing_frameworks#Python /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu \X/ snipabacken.se> R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
