On 2008-05-24, Fuzzyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A worthwhile question for the OP - your patch seems fairly simple. Is
> it easy for you to extend unittest for your own testing needs by
> subclassing?
I've been ill the last days, but I will look into this possibility.
--
Antoon Pardon
--
h
Diez B. Roggisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't see this as something that can be solved by ordering tests -
>*especially* not on a per-method-level as the OP suggested, because I
>tend to have test suites that span several files.
unittest already runs multiple test suites in the order you
> On Behalf Of Roy Smith
> You could have a bunch of tests of increasing complexity.
> The first bunch of tests all run in a few seconds and test
> some basic functionality. From experience, you also know
> that these are the tests that are most likely to fail as you
> port to a new environme
In fact, from a protocol point of view, some of the types really do depend
on each other. We send counted strings, for example, so we can't send a
string until we know how to send an int (for the string length). If the
first test that fails is the string test, I know right off that the problem
Here's an example of why *running* tests in order can make sense.
You could have a bunch of tests of increasing complexity. The first bunch
of tests all run in a few seconds and test some basic functionality. From
experience, you also know that these are the tests that are most likely to
f
On May 25, 3:13 pm, Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> John Roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I really don't care what the OP does in his own projects. My objection
> > is that, if it goes into the standard library, is that it passes a
> > signal that it
"Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree that tests should not depend on each other, but sometimes it's
> > still useful to have the tests run in a certain order for reporting
> > purposes.
>
> Then sort your report. Seriously. A test-outpt shoud be in a way that
> delimits in
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really don't care what the OP does in his own projects. My objection
> is that, if it goes into the standard library, is that it passes a
> signal that it's good practice to allow dependencies between tests. It
> most defin
On May 24, 7:22 am, André <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I can't relate to anyone that want to oppose a change that would give
> more freedom to a programmer.
>
> André
Well, you can already do that. Or anything else you want. It's not all
that difficult to change the algorithms in the unittest p
Roy Smith schrieb:
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Fuzzyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, like others, I have had wonderful experiences of trying to track
down test failures that depend on the order that tests run in. Having
interdependencies between tests is a recipe for madness...
I ag
On May 24, 3:57 pm, Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> Fuzzyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Whilst I understand your point, I think the danger is that you end up
> > with hidden dependencies on the test order - which you're not aware of
> > and that the
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Fuzzyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whilst I understand your point, I think the danger is that you end up
> with hidden dependencies on the test order - which you're not aware of
> and that the tests never expose.
Well, yes. But, this is no worse than the curr
>I can't relate to anyone that want to oppose a change that would give
>more freedom to a programmer.
While in general I agree with this.. I think in the case of python
part of it's base philosophy seems to be a tendency to encourage a
single way of doing things, and create a path of least resista
On May 24, 2:44 pm, Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> Fuzzyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Also, like others, I have had wonderful experiences of trying to track
> > down test failures that depend on the order that tests run in. Having
> > interdepende
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Fuzzyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, like others, I have had wonderful experiences of trying to track
> down test failures that depend on the order that tests run in. Having
> interdependencies between tests is a recipe for madness...
I agree that tests sh
On May 23, 10:36 am, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some time ago I asked whether is would be possible that unittest would
> perform the test in order of appearence in the file.
>
> The answers seemed to be negative. Since I really would like this
> behaviour I took the trouble of looki
On May 24, 10:12 am, Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> John Roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Does the following patch has a chance of being introduced in the
> > > standard python distribution?
>
> > I certainly hope not!
>
> I think you're being ove
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Does the following patch has a chance of being introduced in the
> > standard python distribution?
>
> I certainly hope not!
I think you're being overly negative here. Antoon went to the trouble to
read the sources and
Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The answers seemed to be negative. Since I really would like this
> behaviour
I didn't see you explain *why* you think this behaviour is desirable.
You've already had responses that explained why it leaves you open to
more bugs when code only works if t
I personally don't see any benefit in this approach. By definition,
unittests should be independent, so the order argument suggests a deeper
issue. What's your use case ?
Quentin
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Some time ago I asked whether is would
On May 23, 3:36 am, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some time ago I asked whether is would be possible that unittest would
> perform the test in order of appearence in the file.
>
> The answers seemed to be negative. Since I really would like this
> behaviour I took the trouble of lookin
21 matches
Mail list logo
