[Python-Dev] PEP: Frequently-requested additional features for the `unittest` module

Wed Jul 16 04:27:59 CEST 2008

Ben Finney wrote:
> Scott Dial <scott+python-dev at scottdial.com> writes:
>>> Why [introduce redundant test names]?
>> To answer the question: The above tests are logically equivalent, but
> the failure message would be different, reporting failure in terms of
> what the caller wanted to test.

I can see how this argument makes sense, and is distinct from the fail* 
vs. assert* discussion. As you say, I'm interested what other think 
about this.
>> Besides, ``assert_not_greater_than_or_equal`` is god-awful-long,
>> along with the complaints about PEP-8-ifying. I wonder if it would
>> be better to abbreviate these names with the *same name* that was
>> used for the attribute in the operator module. Let's not reinvent
>> the wheel here..
>> Interesting. So you advocate collapsing the above eight tests into the
> following four:
>> assert_lt
> assert_gt
> assert_le
> assert_ge

I would argue to go even further:
assertEqual = assert_eq
assertAlmostEqual = assert_almost_eq
assertNotEqual = assert_ne
assertNotAlmostEqual = assert_almost_ne
I'm not sure if there are others, but using the same abbreviations from 
operator is consistent and readable and short, in my opinion.
-- 
Scott Dial
scott at scottdial.com
scodial at cs.indiana.edu