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 asvetlov
Recipients Petter S, asvetlov, njs, pdxjohnny, r.david.murray, yselivanov, zach.ware
Date 2018-03-09.12:08:41
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
1. We have an agreement that we need `asyncSetUp` and all family. I strongly support it. `super()` call is crucial argument I think.

2. Should async setup/teardown methods be a part of `unittest.TestCase` or we need a new AsyncTestCase class?

I believe adding async methods to TestCase makes no sense: without instructions how to run async code these methods are pretty useless and error-prone. Implementation of async startup/teardown without providing async runner (read about a runner below) looks like a error. If we mix everything into TestCase we should support virtually both modes in the single TestCase class: one for sync-only test case and other for async tests with async setup/teardown.

3. The next question is: should we support *every not existing yet* async framework by our tools or asyncio-compatible only. 
*Not existing yet* means we have no idea how to create a test loop, prepare it, run a test by loop, tear down everything.
Sure, we can invite a `async function runner` concept but I request a PEP for such significant addition with full specification.

Zachary Ware proposed `coroutine_runner` property in `TestCase`.
What is `coroutine_runner`? How should it work? How to run a coroutine? Subscribe for a UNIX signal or spawn a subprocess (asyncio has many tricks for signal/subprocess support, pretty sure they are not compatible with curio/trio approach)? Should we expose unified timer/socket/file API?
Is it ok that correct asyncio code will fail or even hang if `coroutine_runner` is not compatible with asyncio? If no -- that is benefit of *unified runner* if we need to use concrete runner family for writing tests?

In case of limiting build-in `AsyncioTestCase` to asyncio only we narrow down to very well defined asyncio API. Tornado and Twisted declared asyncio compatibility, they should work with the test case class.

curio/trio explicitly declared incompatibility with asyncio. That's fine, we should not support them by standard unittest classes too because we have no way to write tests for non-specified-yet contracts.
Date User Action Args
2018-03-09 12:08:41asvetlovsetrecipients: + asvetlov, r.david.murray, njs, zach.ware, yselivanov, pdxjohnny, Petter S
2018-03-09 12:08:41asvetlovsetmessageid: <>
2018-03-09 12:08:41asvetlovlinkissue32972 messages
2018-03-09 12:08:41asvetlovcreate