对于鼻子测试类，使用__init __(self)而不是setup(self)有不利之处吗? [英] Is there a downside for using __init__(self) instead of setup(self) for a nose test class?

问题描述

为

运行nosetests -s

class TestTemp():

    def __init__(self):
        print '__init__'
        self.even = 0

    def setup(self):
        print '__setup__'
        self.odd = 1

    def test_even(self):
        print 'test_even'
        even_number = 10
        assert even_number % 2 == self.even

    def test_odd(self):
        print 'test_odd'
        odd_number = 11
        assert odd_number % 2 == self.odd

打印出以下内容.

__init__
__init__
__setup__
test_even
.__setup__
test_odd
.

在运行测试之前创建测试实例，而在测试之前立即运行安装程序.

The test instances are created before tests are run, while setup runs right before the test.

在一般情况下，__init__()和setup()可以完成相同的操作，但是使用__init__()代替setup()有不利之处吗?还是同时使用两者?

For the general case, __init__() and setup() accomplish the same thing, but is there a downside for using __init__() instead of setup()? Or using both?

推荐答案

虽然__init__可以代替setUp，但是您应该坚持使用setUp，因为它是编写测试的风格化协议的一部分.它还有一个tearDown对应物，而__init__没有，以及__init__没有的类级和模块级的对应物.

While __init__ may work as a replacement for setUp, you should stick to setUp because it is part of the stylized protocol for writing tests. It also has a counterpart, tearDown, which __init__ does not, as well as class- and module-level counterparts which __init__ does not.

编写测试类与编写普通类不同，因此您应该坚持编写测试类所使用的样式.

Writing test classes is different than writing normal classes, so you should stick to the style used to write test classes.

这篇关于对于鼻子测试类，使用__init __(self)而不是setup(self)有不利之处吗?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！