scikit-learn/scikit-learn — pull request #706 by feth (2012-03-17 16:01:15+00:00)
Title: Should there be many assert_*() in utils.testing?

I saw a lonely nonstandard assert_in() in utils.testing, that -I was wongfully led to think- could be have been used instead of assert_true in https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/commit/7af5f6a549485b745edf7e8ddd1fd065de1ea51c

by default, assert_true() gives a quite poor output when things fail.

In this pull request, I renamed assert_in to something else (assert_contained)
I conditionnally used nose.tools in the case where it is available to provide assert_in.

I'd like to spawn a discussion about the choice between

* the direct -and quite natural- usage of nose.tools in the lowest version accepted in dependencies
* re implementation (and usage) of what's useful.

If the latter is prefered, we'd need small refactors in order to always import from sklearn's util/testing.py instead of nose.tools.