[Twisted-Python] Depreciation of trial.unittest functions?

Jonathan Lange jml at mumak.net
Sun Jan 1 22:48:05 EST 2006

On 1/1/06, James Y Knight <foom at fuhm.net> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2005, at 5:16 AM, Jonathan Lange wrote:
> > On 12/30/05, Paul Swartz <paulswartz at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not sure if Conch is the only project that did this, but it
> >> used the
> >> trial.unittest.* functions instead of methods on TestCases.  I
> >> used them
> >> to avoid having to pass TestCase instances around all over the
> >> places,
> >> or using a global variable.  To avoid the depreciation warnings, I've
> >> starting using the unittest._inst global variable, but I doubt
> >> that this
> >> is the appropriate way to change my code.  Is this just not a
> >> supported
> >> way of using Trial, or is there something else I should be doing?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > This is just not a supported way of using Trial.
> Given that the methods don't use self at all (and at least I can't
> forsee any need to in the future), is there a reason they can't be
> class methods, so that unittest.TestCase.assertEquals(a, b) would work?

I'm not sure that there is a good reason for doing so.  From what I
can gather, the assertions in the conch tests are part of extensions
to conch's application code.  I think that this a Bad Thing.

If Trial's assertions remain instance methods only, then the natural
way of using Trial will be to put assertions in the actual test_
methods.  I think that this is a Good Thing[1].


[1]. I think that to do otherwise is to dilute the meaning of the
phrase 'unit test'.

More information about the Twisted-Python mailing list