Message65154
Hey, I'm open to anything. If I started writing unittest from scratch
knowing what I know now, I'd probably have kept the API a little
slimmer. Oh, and I'd have named everthing according to Python
conventions; my deepest and belated apologies for that.
I think the design has held up pretty well, even if it's arguably not
the most pythonic. Its familiarity to users of other xUnit frameworks
really does help new Pythoneers start writing tests immediately. And as
for the TestLoader stuff, it looks (and perhaps is) a bit overblown, but
I can't count the number of times people have asked me how to do obscure
or unusual things with the module and I've been able to respond with
something like, "just write a custom TestLoader/TestRunner".
I don't intend to take unittest in any particular direction; truth be
told, I'm now only an occasional visitor to the land of Python, and I
don't think I've had commit rights since the move to subversion. My
continued involvement with the unittest tickets is mainly to help
provide input along the lines of "we discussed this years ago, and
decided against it / thought it would be great". Far be it from me to
stand in the way of progress -- I'd be happy to see unittest re-worked
in any way that makes sense. |
|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2008-04-08 08:01:35 | purcell | set | spambayes_score: 0.00563196 -> 0.0056319605 recipients:
+ purcell, gvanrossum, rhettinger, benjamin.peterson |
| 2008-04-08 08:01:34 | purcell | set | spambayes_score: 0.00563196 -> 0.00563196 messageid: <[email protected]> |
| 2008-04-08 08:01:33 | purcell | link | issue2578 messages |
| 2008-04-08 08:01:29 | purcell | create | |
|