Author pitrou
Recipients Arfrever, Julian, Yaroslav.Halchenko, abingham, bfroehle, borja.ruiz, brett.cannon, brian.curtin, chris.jerdonek, eric.araujo, eric.snow, exarkun, ezio.melotti, fperez, hpk, michael.foord, nchauvat, ncoghlan, pitrou, r.david.murray, santoso.wijaya, serhiy.storchaka, spiv
Date 2013-02-10.11:41:37
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1360496309.3470.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-reply-to <>
> Please don't commit I think we still need a discussion as to whether
> subtests or paramaterized tests are a better approach. I certainly
> don't think we need both and there are a lot of people asking for
> parameterized tests.

I think they don't cater to the same crowd. I see parameterized tests as
primarily used by people who like adding formal complexity to their
tests in the name of architectural elegance (decorators, non-intuitive
constructs and other additional boilerplate). Subtests are meant to not
get in the way. IMHO, this makes them more suitable for stdlib
inclusion, while the testing-in-python people can still rely on their
additional frameworks.

Also, subtests would be immediately and trivially usable in our own test
Date User Action Args
2013-02-10 11:41:37pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, brett.cannon, spiv, exarkun, ncoghlan, ezio.melotti, eric.araujo, Arfrever, r.david.murray, michael.foord, brian.curtin, hpk, fperez, chris.jerdonek, Yaroslav.Halchenko, santoso.wijaya, nchauvat, Julian, abingham, eric.snow, serhiy.storchaka, borja.ruiz, bfroehle
2013-02-10 11:41:37pitroulinkissue16997 messages
2013-02-10 11:41:37pitroucreate