Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> added the comment: I agree with Michael - one test that covers multiple settings can easily be done by collecting results within the test itself and then checking at the end that no failures were detected (e.g. I've done this myself with a test that needed to be run against multiple input files - the test knew the expected results and maintained lists of filenames where the result was incorrect. At the end of the test, if any of those lists contained entries, the test was failed, with the error message giving details of which files had failed and why).
What parameterised tests could add which is truly unique is for each of those files to be counted and tracked as a separate test. Sometimes the single-test-with-internal-failure-recording will still make more sense, but tracking the tests individually will typically give a better indication of software health (e.g. in my example above, the test ran against a few dozen files, but the only way to tell if it was one specific file that was failing or all of them was to go look at the error message). ---------- nosy: +ncoghlan _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue7897> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
