Re: Art of Unit Testing
- From: bkhl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Björn Lindström)
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:02:09 +0200
Christoph Zwerschke <zwerschke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Would it make sense to add "globaleSetup" and "globalTearDown" methods
> to the TestCase class? I think at least it would not harm
> anybody. Where should such proposals be submitted?
In general that's not such a good idea. If you build your tests like
that, it gets hard to know which test really went wrong, and you might
get the situation where the whole set of tests works, but depend on each
other in some way. (This can also happen for more obscure reasons, and
is worth looking out for whichever way you do it.)
So, rebuilding the environment for the each before every single test is
generally worth the overhead.
--
Björn Lindström <bkhl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Student of computational linguistics, Uppsala University, Sweden
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Art of Unit Testing
- From: phil hunt
- Re: Art of Unit Testing
- From: Christoph Zwerschke
- Re: Art of Unit Testing
- From: John Roth
- Re: Art of Unit Testing
- References:
- Art of Unit Testing
- From: Christoph Zwerschke
- Art of Unit Testing
- Prev by Date: Re: time.clock() or time.time()
- Next by Date: pre subprocess module help
- Previous by thread: Re: Art of Unit Testing
- Next by thread: Re: Art of Unit Testing
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
