Message156750
| Author |
gwrtheyrn |
| Recipients |
gwrtheyrn |
| Date |
2012年03月25日.11:43:50 |
| SpamBayes Score |
1.0047518e-14 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1332675832.44.0.721741399942.issue14403@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Most assert statements of the unittest module provide both an assert statement as well as its inverse, like "assertIn" and "assertNotIn". There is apparently no such thing for exceptions.
I can do the following:
> with self.assertRaises(SomeException):
> do_something()
But not:
> with self.assertRaisesNot(SomeException):
> do_something()
I don't want to simply execute the code and hope that it doesn't raise an exception, because if it does, the test fails with an "error" status instead of a "failed" status.
A possible workaround is the following code:
> try:
> do_something()
> except SomeException:
> self.fail()
But that is not that expressive as an assert statement.
A naming alternative would be "assertDoesNotRaise".
In case this enhancement gets accepted, there should also be an inverse of "assertRaisesRegexp". |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2012年03月25日 11:43:52 | gwrtheyrn | set | recipients:
+ gwrtheyrn |
| 2012年03月25日 11:43:52 | gwrtheyrn | set | messageid: <1332675832.44.0.721741399942.issue14403@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012年03月25日 11:43:50 | gwrtheyrn | link | issue14403 messages |
| 2012年03月25日 11:43:50 | gwrtheyrn | create |
|