On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:13:22 am Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Tests in the standard distribution which use the deprecated > > style will need to be converted. Steven d'Aprano claims this is > > nontrivial (and thus error- prone) in some cases. I haven't seen > > that claim denied, and it seems plausible to me. > > I'd like to see examples of that (this would be Steven's task if he's > serious about his assertion). Since the fail and assert names are > mapped to each other using aliasing I don't see how it could be > nontrivial to map e.g. self.failIf(x) to self.assertFalse(x) -- these > are the same function!
I have not knowingly claimed that mechanically swapping fail* to assert* tests was difficult. The difficulty I refer to is about readability and understanding of the code. I often think about tests as sequences of possible failures, and as such my unit tests are most naturally written as fail*. It is that mental effort of reversing the sense of the tests when reading and writing assert* tests that I refer to. If you want to declare that fail* must go, I'll be disappointed but life will go on. But despite the claims of those who have asserted (pun intended) that fail* tests are always more difficult to understand, that's not the case for everyone. -- Steven _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
