Re: OFF-TOPIC Ben's sig monster quote [was Re: Parametrized Unit Tests]
People are naturally competitive. People naturally don't like to hear the word know. People love to get what they want. Combine all of these things together and you have all of the elements necessary to eventually create another conflict. Just because it doesn't happen immediately doesn't mean it's not going to happen ever. On Fri, Aug 28, 2015, 01:05 Nick Sarbicki nick.a.sarbi...@gmail.com wrote: Well who would we fight if we were all friends with each other? On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:31 Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote: Completely off-topic. Stop reading now if you only want to read things about Python. On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 09:46 am, Ben Finney wrote: \“Of course, everybody says they're for peace. Hitler was for | `\ peace. Everybody is for peace. The question is: what kind of | _o__)peace?” —Noam Chomsky, 1984-05-14 | With the greatest of respect to Chomsky, I think he is simply wrong about Hitler. Hitler actually believed that war was good for the national character, and indeed good for the soul, and that long periods of peace would enfeeble a nation and make it decadent and effete. Unlike a lot of people who believe the same thing, Hitler actually had experience in war, including a medal for bravery and a serious injury due to poison gas. Many people over the ages have thought that if only war was more terrible, we would stop making it. Alas, that appears to be false: no matter how terrible war is, there is always someone who thinks that it is better than peace. -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- - Nick -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OFF-TOPIC Ben's sig monster quote [was Re: Parametrized Unit Tests]
On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 11:56:53 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: Completely off-topic. Stop reading now if you only want to read things about Python. On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 09:46 am, Ben Finney wrote: \ “Of course, everybody says they're for peace. Hitler was for | `\ peace. Everybody is for peace. The question is: what kind of | _o__) peace?” —Noam Chomsky, 1984-05-14 | With the greatest of respect to Chomsky, I think he is simply wrong about Hitler. Hitler actually believed that war was good for the national character, and indeed good for the soul, and that long periods of peace would enfeeble a nation and make it decadent and effete. Unlike a lot of people who believe the same thing, Hitler actually had experience in war, including a medal for bravery and a serious injury due to poison gas. Many people over the ages have thought that if only war was more terrible, we would stop making it. Alas, that appears to be false: no matter how terrible war is, there is always someone who thinks that it is better than peace. If you focus on war then no-war is not an option. However we could switch focus a bit from war to semantics and hear the – by humanity timescale – recent (in)famous reference to 'crusade' made by a well-known mensa-IQ head of state... And thence to the underlying mythologies Most every culture/religion I know has a '2-tier' mythology thus: Tier 1. Be nice, Be good, Turn the other cheek, Practice Non-Violence and other such good stuff Tier 2. When the above doesn't work and push comes to shove, mow the 'other guy' down and you are doing God's work (or God himself is doing it... depending on culture) So then people think these mythologies are a/the problem and super-wisely remove them from the education of the rising generation. And then we have new mythologies to replace the old ones -- Superman, Star-Wars... Hollywood in general which 'betters' the earlier mythologies by making good/evil more blackwhite and removing all question-marks. Its is an elegant separation of concerns: Blood on the screen, popcorn in the lap And inbetween these two mythologies are all the war-mongering ones — martyr, patriot, son-of-the-soil… hero I find it amazing how people cant see that «terrorist» from one side is «freedom-fighter» from the other. To see the consequences that the semantics of our words have, consider this thought-experiment: «X» is holed-up in town T and authorities need to get him out Replace «X» by 'murderer' and bombing out the whole of T to get him looks implausible, unthinkable Replace «X» by 'terrorist' and its suddenly routine Long-story short: The enunciation terrorist is as much an act of terror as the acts of the terrorist Or Rambo.desugared() == murderer == OBL.desugared() [Making that equation more relevant to context and correspondingly polit incorrect is left as an exercise to the reader] Those who wish to abjure war may consider re/de-educating their children on this matter रुसि [For GG to please not mess my unicode] -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OFF-TOPIC Ben's sig monster quote [was Re: Parametrized Unit Tests]
On Fri, 2015-08-28 at 06:35 +, Nick Sarbicki wrote: Well who would we fight if we were all friends with each other? That's what Paintball is for. /Martin S -- This address is for technical mail lists only.For all other matters, please use my main addressat the .org domain. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OFF-TOPIC Ben's sig monster quote [was Re: Parametrized Unit Tests]
Well who would we fight if we were all friends with each other? On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:31 Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote: Completely off-topic. Stop reading now if you only want to read things about Python. On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 09:46 am, Ben Finney wrote: \“Of course, everybody says they're for peace. Hitler was for | `\ peace. Everybody is for peace. The question is: what kind of | _o__)peace?” —Noam Chomsky, 1984-05-14 | With the greatest of respect to Chomsky, I think he is simply wrong about Hitler. Hitler actually believed that war was good for the national character, and indeed good for the soul, and that long periods of peace would enfeeble a nation and make it decadent and effete. Unlike a lot of people who believe the same thing, Hitler actually had experience in war, including a medal for bravery and a serious injury due to poison gas. Many people over the ages have thought that if only war was more terrible, we would stop making it. Alas, that appears to be false: no matter how terrible war is, there is always someone who thinks that it is better than peace. -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- - Nick -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OFF-TOPIC Ben's sig monster quote [was Re: Parametrized Unit Tests]
Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info writes: With the greatest of respect to Chomsky, I think he is simply wrong about Hitler. Hitler actually believed that war was good for the national character, and indeed good for the soul, and that long periods of peace would enfeeble a nation and make it decadent and effete. I think the beliefs of Adolf Hitler have been interpreted in a great many ways by many people, and support for many contradictory positions can be found in his writings and actions. Hitler certainly made *offers* of peace several times during the Third Reich. Those may well have been insincere, but he intended at least some of his own citizens to be convinced by them. So I interpret Chomsky's meaning as being that any demagogue can, and all popular despots do, claim they have all manner of virtuous goals; therefore we must, to understand their intent, ask anyone speaking of such virtuous goals what exactly is meant by their pleasing words. Regardless: I have found that aphorism to be overly flippant and obscure, I will take this as an opportunity to cull it from my database. Many people over the ages have thought that if only war was more terrible, we would stop making it. Alas, that appears to be false: no matter how terrible war is, there is always someone who thinks that it is better than peace. Those who benefit from a continuance of war have tended to exert significant effort to reduce the awfulness of war for their own, non-combatant, civilians: either by making war at a greater remove (the latest iteration being remote-piloted drone attacks), or by ensuring civilians don't get to see reports of the awfulness of war. So the mere fact that we continue to make war doesn't argue against the hypothesis, because war is still not particularly awful to those that approve and fund it. Nonetheless, I also disagree with the hypothesis. I disagree on the ground that the awfulness of war is determined less by some external “awfulness of war” parameter, but in large part by the activities of those who plan it and engage in it. They get the war they create. -- \ “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of | `\men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good | _o__) of everyone.” —John Maynard Keynes | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
OFF-TOPIC Ben's sig monster quote [was Re: Parametrized Unit Tests]
Completely off-topic. Stop reading now if you only want to read things about Python. On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 09:46 am, Ben Finney wrote: \ “Of course, everybody says they're for peace. Hitler was for | `\ peace. Everybody is for peace. The question is: what kind of | _o__) peace?” —Noam Chomsky, 1984-05-14 | With the greatest of respect to Chomsky, I think he is simply wrong about Hitler. Hitler actually believed that war was good for the national character, and indeed good for the soul, and that long periods of peace would enfeeble a nation and make it decadent and effete. Unlike a lot of people who believe the same thing, Hitler actually had experience in war, including a medal for bravery and a serious injury due to poison gas. Many people over the ages have thought that if only war was more terrible, we would stop making it. Alas, that appears to be false: no matter how terrible war is, there is always someone who thinks that it is better than peace. -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OFF-TOPIC Ben's sig monster quote [was Re: Parametrized Unit Tests]
On 08/28/2015 11:24 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: Would you rather be an powerful, armed war hero admired and feared by your nation or a foresaken unemployed drunkard who rots in jail? Marko Time to quote the most famous general in the galaxy: “Ohhh. Great warrior.Wars not make one great.” ;) JM -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OFF-TOPIC Ben's sig monster quote [was Re: Parametrized Unit Tests]
Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au: Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info writes: Many people over the ages have thought that if only war was more terrible, we would stop making it. Alas, that appears to be false: no matter how terrible war is, there is always someone who thinks that it is better than peace. Those who benefit from a continuance of war have tended to exert significant effort to reduce the awfulness of war for their own, non-combatant, civilians: either by making war at a greater remove (the latest iteration being remote-piloted drone attacks), or by ensuring civilians don't get to see reports of the awfulness of war. There are people around us who see no downsides to war, violence and killing. Many of them must feel terribly frustrated during periods of peace. That's why it is extremely difficult to put the genie back in the bottle when the supposed root cause of the war has been removed (see the IRA, ETA or the Tamil Tigers, for example). Would you rather be an powerful, armed war hero admired and feared by your nation or a foresaken unemployed drunkard who rots in jail? Communities and unscrupulous leaders have regularly put these berserkers to good use (URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker). Eastern Ukraine is a recent example, but the example is by no means isolated. No general dares to punish a foot soldier that has taken liberties with civilians. Marko -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OFF-TOPIC Ben's sig monster quote [was Re: Parametrized Unit Tests]
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 04:35 pm, Nick Sarbicki wrote: Well who would we fight if we were all friends with each other? According to the Nac Mac Feegle, there's always *someone* to fight. If not an enemy, there's always your friends, family, inanimate objects, and if all else fails, yourself. Crivens! I kicked meself in ma ain heid! -- Steven Nae King! Nae Quin! Nae Laird! Nae Master! We'll no be fooled again! -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OFF-TOPIC Ben's sig monster quote [was Re: Parametrized Unit Tests]
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote: On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 04:35 pm, Nick Sarbicki wrote: Well who would we fight if we were all friends with each other? According to the Nac Mac Feegle, there's always *someone* to fight. If not an enemy, there's always your friends, family, inanimate objects, and if all else fails, yourself. Crivens! I kicked meself in ma ain heid! I've heard plenty of times the old with friends like these line. This seems to merit an even stronger version... with a self like this, who needs friends? ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OFF-TOPIC Ben's sig monster quote [was Re: Parametrized Unit Tests]
On 08/28/2015 01:27 AM, Ben Finney wrote: -- \ “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of | `\men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good | _o__) of everyone.” —John Maynard Keynes | Now that is an interesting quote, which I'll remember! -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Parametrized Unit Tests
Hello, петък, 21 август 2015 г., 21:43:19 UTC-4, Ben Finney написа: Is there a better a way to pass the server, the user and the password to the test without resolving to global variables? The ‘testscenarios’ library is one way to have a set of scenarios applied at run-time to produce tests across all combinations URL:https://pypi.python.org/pypi/testscenarios/. testscenarios worked for me. Thank you for your recommendation. Regards Ivan -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Parametrized Unit Tests
rambius rambiusparkisan...@gmail.com writes: Hello, петък, 21 август 2015 г., 21:43:19 UTC-4, Ben Finney написа: The ‘testscenarios’ library is one way to have a set of scenarios applied at run-time to produce tests across all combinations URL:https://pypi.python.org/pypi/testscenarios/. testscenarios worked for me. Thank you for your recommendation. You're welcome! You may be interested in the ‘testing-in-python’ forum URL:http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/testing-in-python to discuss other aspects of writing test cases in Python. -- \“Of course, everybody says they're for peace. Hitler was for | `\ peace. Everybody is for peace. The question is: what kind of | _o__)peace?” —Noam Chomsky, 1984-05-14 | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Parametrized Unit Tests
In a message of Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:17:32 -0700, rambius writes: Although I developed these tests as unit tests they are more of integration tests. Is there an integration testing framework that supports a more convenient passing of test parameters / data? Thank you in advance for your responses. Regards Rambius Many. https://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonTestingToolsTaxonomy isn't a bad place to start looking, but things have been developed which aren't there. ie responses http://cramer.io/2014/05/20/mocking-requests-with-responses/ nice thing for mocking requests, if you are using the requests library ... You may get a better response if you try that question over here: http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/testing-in-python Laura -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Parametrized Unit Tests
rambius rambiusparkisan...@gmail.com writes: I am running one and the same unit tests that test some web application. I would like to execute them against different servers that may host different instances of the application. Those aren't unit tests, then. A unit test, by definition, tests a small unit of code; usually one true-or-false assertion about one function call. What you describe sounds more like integration tests or feature tests or acceptance tests; something where large parts of the code base are all exercised at once. Is there a better a way to pass the server, the user and the password to the test without resolving to global variables? The ‘testscenarios’ library is one way to have a set of scenarios applied at run-time to produce tests across all combinations URL:https://pypi.python.org/pypi/testscenarios/. Although I developed these tests as unit tests they are more of integration tests. Is there an integration testing framework that supports a more convenient passing of test parameters / data? You may want to look at behaviour-driven testing, e.g. using Behave URL:https://pypi.python.org/pypi/behave/. Another resource to use is the ‘testing-in-python’ forum URL:http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/testing-in-python where there is more focussed discussion on testing in Python. -- \ “Repetition leads to boredom, boredom to horrifying mistakes, | `\ horrifying mistakes to God-I-wish-I-was-still-bored, and it | _o__) goes downhill from there.” —Will Larson, 2008-11-04 | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
