On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 10:19:05 +0200, Christoph Zwerschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >rafi wrote: >> 'should' may be too strong, 'may' may be better. In the meantime I found: >> http://python-mock.sourceforge.net/ > >Thanks for the link. Björn also pointed to http://pmock.sourceforge.net > >Using mock objects sounds like a good idea. > >A problem with mock objects may be that they make writing tests for the >occasional programmer yet another bit more difficult, and that you >always have to ensure your mock objects really mock the real objects >perfectly, so you have to write another test for that. The behavior and >the API of the real objects may change every now and then. > >Let me summarize some good answers in this thread: > >- unittest is deliberately intended to be a JUnit implementation >- unittest is for *unit* testing (only) ;-)
I use regression testing (using my "lintest" module, which is functionally similar to unittest) on the whole application. I really see no reason why the concept should be limited to testing individual modules (or roughly similar-sized pieces). -- Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
