Proposed patch adds the ExtraAssertions mix-in that provides additional assert methods. These methods provide better failure report than assertTrue/assertFalse with a result of corresponding function. For example assertStartsWith outputs shorten reprs of the start of the string and prefix.

These checks are quite popular and can be used tens or hundreds times in tests (the patch makes tests using new assert methods):

assertHasAttr       121 times
assertNotHasAttr     99 times
assertIsSubclass    243 times
assertNotIsSubclass  95 times
assertStartsWith    131 times
assertEndsWith       73 times

Additional statistics that proves that specified checks are not specific for narrow group of tests:

assertHasAttr       121 times in 57 files
assertNotHasAttr     99 times in 31 files
assertIsSubclass    243 times in 30 files
assertNotIsSubclass  95 times in 5 files
assertStartsWith    131 times in 59 files
assertEndsWith       73 times in 36 files

Why a mixin?

(As an aside, there is a proposal to move all assert methods to a place where they can be accessed outside test cases.)

I have this proposal (issue19645) in mind. We can add these method just in TestCase.

In any case I'm going to add the ExtraAssertions mixin in test.support in maintained versions to help keeping branches in sync.

I don't really like the assertEndsWith method which triggers a mental hiccup when taking a familiar method call, making it into function call, and giving an awkward looking camelcase name.

Also, Guido is usually opposed to broad, sweeping search/replace patches.  Instead, he has advocated "holistic refactoring" where updates are done by someone actively working on the module rather than a disinterested party churning the code without thinking deeply about the topic at hand.

Changes in tests are provided as a demonstration that these methods are useful. I propose to commit only the unittest part, and use new methods on a case-by-case basis. For example some tests already define methods like assertHasAttr or assertIsSubclass, They can now use standard methods.

assertEndsWith() can be used 73 times in 36 files. It produces more useful error report than assertTrue(a.endswith(b)).

Why a mixin rather than adding to TestCase? If they are useful they should be easy to find.

Also, see Issue27198 for another possible new assert.

I'm fine with these as a mixin - they are all very generic and unambiguously named. I'd marginally prefer the opt-in mixin over adding them to the base class.

Ideally they'd be matchers, but since I haven't ported that upstream yet, thats asking for more work, and we can always migrate later.

(https://rbtcollins.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/maintainable-pyunit-test-suites/ and http://testtools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/for-test-authors.html#matchers - sorry about the formatting in the blog post, wordpress changed theme details some time after I wrote the post and it now renders horribly :( )

Ask five people to spell "assertEndsWith" and see how many of them capitalize the "W".

I would expect it to be assertEndswith, etc.  You will note that all the other cases of multiple capitals are either englishification of symbolic operators or concatenations of separate type words and/or syntactically distinct operators.