Garrett Cooper <yaneg...@gmail.com> added the comment: I think some perspective is required on this enhancement request. I originally filed this issue -- http://bugs.python.org/issue5538 -- because of the unneeded complexity involved with duplicating teardown-related code in setUp because of a step in setUp failing.
>From my perspective, there are two issues: - setUp failing doesn't cleanup on failure unless the test writer explicitly adds cleanup logic. - cleanup shouldn't partially replace tearDown -- either supplement it or completely replace it longterm. Otherwise the unittest code and expectations associated with it will potentially confuse end users. Another thought: Why not have an option for defining a method called `incrementalTearDown', which replaces `tearDown' from a functional standpoint? A method like that would clearly convey that this is designed to replace tearDown, it's not the same functionally, and would ease migration over the long-term if people chose to use this design when writing testcases. I personally think that doing something like this would be trivial (yet novel) functionality as it makes more sense than the current implementation of setUp->test->tearDown. ---------- nosy: +yaneurabeya _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue5679> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
