On 5 Aug, 14:52, Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
> jfine wrote:
> > On 5 Aug, 10:17, Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
>
> >> Jonathan Fine wrote:
>
> >>> Hi
>
> >>> I just discovered today anewsyntaxfor writing tests. The basic
> >>> idea is to write a function that contains some statements, and run it
but it has to be better
than the existing one in some situations.
Chalk and cheese.
My concern is to make tests easy to write, and that is something that
unittest is, in my view, not good at. It is, as you say, a *test
framework*.
I've not written a test framework. I've fou
s can be handled in the
> > runner, as can the test script raising an expected or unexpected
> > exception.
>
> Hi,
>
> "The unittest module provides a rich set of tools for constructing and
> running tests. This section demonstrates that a small subset of th
Jonathan Fine wrote:
Hi
I just discovered today a new syntax for writing tests. The basic
idea is to write a function that contains some statements, and run it
via a decorator. I wonder if anyone had seen this pattern before, and
how you feel about it. For myself, I quite like it.
Let&#
Hi
I just discovered today a new syntax for writing tests. The basic idea
is to write a function that contains some statements, and run it via a
decorator. I wonder if anyone had seen this pattern before, and how you
feel about it. For myself, I quite like it.
Let's suppose we wa
