Apologies if this is a bit off the wall but I've only just started getting
into unit testing (in Python) this morning. Would generators help you in any
way? You might be able to have a generator which would yield an attribute
set combination each time it is called.
I'm not sure if it would still st
Short update on what I've settled for generating test functions for various
input data:
# test case with common test function
class MyTest(unittest.TestCase):
def _test_invert_flags(self, input, flags, expected):
res = do_invert(input, flags)
self.assertEqual(res, expected)
#
On Nov 22, 11:38 am, Ulrich Eckhardt
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm writing tests and I'm wondering how to achieve a few things most
> elegantly with Python's unittest module.
>
> Let's say I have two flags invert X and invert Y. Now, for testing these, I
> would write one test for each combination. What I
Ulrich Eckhardt writes:
> Let's say I have two flags invert X and invert Y. Now, for testing these, I
> would write one test for each combination. What I have in the test case is
> something like this:
>
> def test_invert_flags(self):
> """test flags to invert coordinates"""
> tests
Ian Kelly wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 4:38 AM, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
>> Also, I'd rather construct the error message from the data
>> instead of maintaining it in different places, because
>> manually keeping those in sync is another, errorprone burden.
>
> I'm not sure I follow the problem you're de
On 11/22/2010 4:38 AM, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
Let's say I have two flags invert X and invert Y. Now, for testing these, I
would write one test for each combination. What I have in the test case is
something like this:
def test_invert_flags(self):
"""test flags to invert coordinates"""
In article ,
Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
> > Yet another possibility is to leave it the way you originally wrote it
> > and not worry about the fact that the loop aborts on the first failure.
> > Let it fail, fix it, then re-run the test to find the next failure.
> > Perhaps not as efficient as findi
Richard Thomas wrote:
[batch-programming different unit tests]
> You could have a parameter to the test method and some custom
> TestLoader that knows what to do with it.
Interesting, thanks for this suggestion, I'll look into it!
Uli
--
Domino Laser GmbH
Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amt
Roy Smith wrote:
> Writing one test method per parameter combination, as you suggested, is
> a reasonable approach, especially if the number of combinations is
> reasonably small.
The number of parameters and thus combinations are unfortunately rather
large. Also, sometimes that data is not static
In article ,
Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
> def test_invert_flags(self):
> """test flags to invert coordinates"""
> tests = [((10, 20), INVERT_NONE, (10, 20)),
>((10, 20), INVERT_X, (-10, 20)),
>((10, 20), INVERT_Y, (10, -20))]
> for input, flags, ex
On Nov 22, 11:38 am, Ulrich Eckhardt
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm writing tests and I'm wondering how to achieve a few things most
> elegantly with Python's unittest module.
>
> Let's say I have two flags invert X and invert Y. Now, for testing these, I
> would write one test for each combination. What I
Hi!
I'm writing tests and I'm wondering how to achieve a few things most
elegantly with Python's unittest module.
Let's say I have two flags invert X and invert Y. Now, for testing these, I
would write one test for each combination. What I have in the test case is
something like this:
def test
12 matches
Mail list logo
