t+1 - Latest Comments in Python doctests seem underappreciated

Re: Python doctests seem underappreciated

Michael Foord — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:56:37 -0000

"Get yourself a real IDE. Emacs handles doctests without any issue"

Yes, because it's autocompletion is brain dead in the first place! At least compared to a real IDE like Wing.

Re: Python doctests seem underappreciated

Matt Wilson — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:55:41 -0000

Yeah, doctests are so simple to write that *anybody* can start writing tests, and I believe that any automated testing, even if it only covers 10% of the code, is still a huge help.

Re: Python doctests seem underappreciated

Matt Wilson — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:52:44 -0000

Masklinn -- thanks for the regexp help! I hoped there was a way to do it. Code updated.

Re: Python doctests seem underappreciated

masklinn — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:28:24 -0000

> but typing in docstrings means I lose the support of my IDE

Get yourself a real IDE. Emacs handles doctests without any issue with doctest-mode 0.5 in mmm-mode.

> and my real code gets bloated with tests - not are useful documentation.

Your tests clearly aren't good enough.

Also Matt, all you boolean fugling could be replaced by `return bool(re.search(r'\bno\b', s, re.I))`

Re: Python doctests seem underappreciated

Paddy3118 — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:19:49 -0000

P.S. More doctest info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Re: Python doctests seem underappreciated

Paddy3118 — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:17:50 -0000

The fact that other important frameworks such as nosetests and unit tests have hooks into doctests is great. It shows that Python unit testers recognise its importance.

The big battle is getting people to write any meaningful tests. Doctests can help break down that barrier.

- Paddy.

Re: Python doctests seem underappreciated

Matt Wilson — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:58:29 -0000

Hi Terry, Yeah, I do use the doctests plugin for nose. So when I run my doctests, I do $ nosetests --with-doctest blah.py

Well, actually, with-doctest=1 is in my $HOME/.noserc, so I don't need the --with-doctest option.

Re: Python doctests seem underappreciated

Terry Peppers — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:55:34 -0000

Matt -

Couldn't you just use nose's doctest plugin?

<my snip="">
% nosetests --with-doctest has.py -v -s
Doctest: has.has_no ... ok

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 1 test in 0.007s

OK
</my>

I love doctests. I also love the nose doctest plugin.

Re: Python doctests seem underappreciated

Matt Wilson — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:36:47 -0000

Hi Olivstor, I don't think you can invoke the Zen since Tim Peters is the guy that wrote both the Zen AND came up with the idea for doctests :)

But in terms of practicality, I think it would be straightforward to come up with some rules for when to use which test framework; e.g., if you need a big long list of fixtures, please use something besides a doctest.

So, the "obvious" way to do it would be to look at the testing needs and then let dictate which tool to use.

The "one obvious way to do it" doesn't mean (by my interpretation, anyway), to use the same tool for everything.

Python has for-loops, iterators, generator expressions, and map. They're all appropriate in different contexts.

Anyhow, thanks for the comment!

Re: Python doctests seem underappreciated

Aaron Oliver — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:28:17 -0000

I agree with Michael, and shall invoke The Zen:

"There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it"

If you have useful tests in doctests AND in test modules, you've created two ways to write tests, have violated the Zen, and are condemned to burn in hell surrounded by Javangelists for all eternity.

In practical terms, though, you're probably OK. I think there just has to be a very clear line drawn about what goes where.

Re: Python doctests seem underappreciated

Matt Wilson — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:58:21 -0000

Hi Michael, Thanks for the comment!

I'm not sure I understand your point about tests in several places. The tests are in two places at most; the docstring, and then whatever external tests I write. It isn't difficult to trace them all down quickly because everything is in predictable locations.

I think that the *right kind of tests* are useful as documentation. It's sometimes easier to show rather than tell. Sure, a 200-line docstring is goofy. But I don't find myself writing those kinds of doctests.

Re: Python doctests seem underappreciated

Matt Wilson — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:53:18 -0000

moved this comment to the reply it was meant to be.

Re: Python doctests seem underappreciated

Michael Foord — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:16:52 -0000

But then you end up with your tests for a module in several places.

Although typing this:

>>> has_no('oh nothing')
False

May not take much longer than:

assert not has_no('oh nothing')

but typing in docstrings means I lose the support of my IDE and my real code gets bloated with tests - not are useful documentation.

Personally I think doctest is *great* for testing documentation, but unittest is more suitable for unit testing.