This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author michael.foord
Recipients berker.peksag, bignose, brett.cannon, carljm, fov, kevinbenton, kushal.das, michael.foord, poke, rbcollins, ztane
Date 2015-07-22.10:22:33
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
I'm not wild about this idea. The problem with the assert methods has *essentially* been solved now, so I'm not convinced of the need for this change (unless users really *need* to have their own mocked attributes like "assert_called_with" which I think is highly unlikely).

Part of the genius of mock was providing a flexible mock object that also encapsulated simple methods for introspecting/asserting how it has been used. Changing to require users to import/know about a whole host of separate functions doesn't feel like an improvement to me. That's aside from the whole "breaking people's code for no tangible benefit" issue.

I acknowledge that other people, Carl for example, have different opinions - but from talking to many, many mock users over the years I think that those with the philosophically purist approach are in a minority to those who appreciate the more practical approach that mock takes.
Date User Action Args
2015-07-22 10:22:34michael.foordsetrecipients: + michael.foord, brett.cannon, rbcollins, carljm, poke, bignose, berker.peksag, kushal.das, ztane, fov, kevinbenton
2015-07-22 10:22:34michael.foordsetmessageid: <>
2015-07-22 10:22:34michael.foordlinkissue24651 messages
2015-07-22 10:22:33michael.foordcreate