Emanuele D'Arrigo wrote:
On Nov 27, 5:00 am, Steven D'Aprano
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Refactor until your code is simple enough to unit-test effectively, then
unit-test effectively.
Ok, I've taken this wise suggestion on board and of course I found
immediately ways to improve the method. -However- this generates
another issue. I can fragment the code of the original method into one
public method and a few private support methods. But this doesn't
reduce the complexity of the testing because the number and complexity
of the possible path stays more or less the same. The solution to this
would be to test the individual methods separately, but is the only
way to test private methods in python to make them (temporarily) non
private? I guess ultimately this would only require the removal of the
appropriate double-underscores followed by method testing and then
adding the double-underscores back in place. There is no "cleaner"
way, is there?
Use single underscore names to mark methods as private. The intent of
double-underscore mangling is to avoid name clashes in multiple
inheritance. If you insist on double underscores, use the mangled name
in your tests. 'Private' is not really private in Python.
IDLE 3.0rc3
>>> class C(): __a=1
>>> C._C__a
1
Terry
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
