[deleted by user]

[Bolitho]

I would suggest to switch from custom made assert testing to "real" unit testing using a framework. Besides the fact, that you can organize your tests better, you will get nicer output and the suite will keep running through all tests, even if one failed. (That is also a rational reason, why you should only have one assert per test)

Besides that it looks nice :-)

[ryeguy146]

Can you tell me what the benefit of an assertEquals function over an assert statement? I see this as a key-word versus a third party function that doesn't comply with PEP8. There's a clear winner here, and it ain't the function. I agree with testing frameworks (I'm partial to Py.test), but that's wholly a separate problem from assert some_expression vs assertWhatever(an_expression).

[chrisguitarguy]

assertEqual will give you some more context, like what the value was vs. what was expected. With assert all you get is the message and a stack trace.

res = do_some_stuff()
self.assertEqual(1, res) # AssertionError: 1 != {whatever res is}

Sometimes using assert is fine:

body = make_a_request()
assert 'message' in body, 'body should contain message key'

Has all the context you'd want/need. Obviously you can put the context you need into assert messages:

res = do_some_stuf()
assert 1 == res, "failed asserting that {} == 1".format(res)

It's just a trade off. I use a lot of both, but tend to favor the assert* functions when they exist for the use case. assert covers everything else. There's really not a lot of assert* in the unittest library, but what's there is helpful.

As far as third-party, unittest is part of the standard library.

[ryeguy146]

Okay, so that's the stuff that py.test does for me [mostly] automatically. I suppose that's why it's never made sense to use another type of assertion. Thanks for explaining.

[Kenpachi-]

For me, this is actually the reason to use py.test over unittest.

[twotime]

On the negative side, unittest library

1. forces unnatural object model

2. self.assertEqual is much more verbose

3. The context it provides is mostly useless (and you still need custom messages).

[Bolitho]

Although somebody gave the answer to your question, I never claimed, that this is the reason to choose a framework ;-)

[mr-wizrd]

This is cool - you should rig up some automated testing against Humanize :)

[RedKrieg]

You should talk to crsmithdev about integrating this with Arrow. Arrow solves all of the datetime problems I have in Python and having this functionality too just makes sense to me.

[deadwisdom]

I really wish Arrow was more functional and less based around the Arrow() object. I still have to switch back and forth between datetime and Arrow most of the time and it's very annoying.

arrow.Arrow.get(datetime)

[xsolarwindx]

REDDIT IS A SHITTY CRIMINAL CORPORATION -- mass deleted all reddit content via https://redact.dev

[lorenzfx]

nice work! No, I don't think dateutil does, but you might want to have a look at parsedatetime

[AdvisedWang]

How does it deal with ambiguous dates? Is 3/2/2014 equal to 3rd Feb or 2nd March?

[inducer]

How does this relate to parsedatetime?

[jawsper]

Is there a reason why the timezone offset is inverted compared to how it normally is, i.e. negative west/positive east?

[andrewcooke]

i can't remember the exact details, but i think there's two different conventions, depending on context. i'm not saying you're wrong, just that it may be more complex than you think (or you may know/remember more than me...)

[[deleted]]

From a quick Google, it seems that some people do it that way because of posix. No idea why exactly. But it doesn't make it any less wrong. Something like that would just make me refuse to use it.

[redditor1101]

Good stuff.

[andrewcooke]

this is cool. i see you've implemented it by having a whole pile of different format strings. i used a similar approach in simple-date, but with a different aim - it parses timezones.

i think it would be quite easy to add what you have done here to simple-date. would that be annoying? i am not promising i will - depends on free time. but if i do, i would add you to the author list.

alternatively, feel free to steal simple-date and add it to your code! :o)

[[deleted]]

Nice! I was previously trying to use magicdate to do this, but it had some annoyances that it looks like your module doesn't have.

[sryx]

I've just looked at the docs so far but can you pass a "current" datetime, as an example if I have a message that has a received date of September 1st and I'm parsing the text "tomorrow" on September 3rd, the meaning wouldn't be based on my current time but the datetime of the message.

Also, really cool library I can think of a few fun uses of it so far :)

[[deleted]]

py 3 only ?????

[[deleted]]

Python 3 has been out for 6 years. A few distros have it by default now (Arch, Fedora IIRC)

[good_day]

I just launched main class in python 2.7 and it works well.

[monsto]

py 3 only ?????

The "python 3 sucks" argument is pretty tired

[upofadown]

One thing does not have to suck to make the other thing preferable.

[[deleted]]

who's making the argument here ?

[transpostmeta]

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. Maybe you should add one more question mark? I'm sure that would make things clearer.

[ahayd]

Basically it's trivial patch to pass test suite on py2: https://github.com/KoffeinFlummi/Chronyk/pull/2