Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> writes: > Be aware that there is also doctest which scans docstrings for text > resembling interactive Python sessions. Doctests are both tests and > usage examples, so I think it's good to put a few of these into the > module.
Yes, it's definitely a good idea to put some examples into the docstrings as doctests. Be aware, though, that this is *not* a substitute for unit tests; doctest is for testing your documentation, not testing your code. You should not aim for extensive coverage in doctests. Heavy use of doctests makes for bad tests *and* bad documentation. Instead, write only those examples that the reader will find helpful to understand normal usage; and use the ‘doctest’ module to test that your documentation is still accurate. Put all your other broad-coverage tests elsewhere (unit tests, behaviour tests, etc.) and leave the docstrings readable. -- \ “Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; | `\ those in philosophy only ridiculous.” —David Hume, _A Treatise | _o__) of Human Nature_, 1739 | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
