HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
chadwhitacre
assertEquals
Python2012–2012
chadwhitacre / assertEquals · Archived

assertEquals

An epic testing interface for Python

3Distinct people
3Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
49GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

An epic testing interface for Python

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by day3 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2012-03-29 07:59:46 UTC to 2012-04-17 21:58:08 UTC.

0122012-03-29 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-03-30 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 commentsMar 292012-03-30 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-03-31 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-03-31 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-04-02 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-04-02 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-04-03 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-04-03 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-04-04 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-04-04 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-04-05 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-04-05 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-04-06 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-04-06 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-04-07 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-04-07 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-04-08 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsApr 72012-04-08 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-04-09 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-04-09 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-04-10 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-04-10 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-04-11 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-04-11 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-04-12 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-04-12 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-04-13 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-04-13 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-04-14 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-04-14 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-04-15 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-04-15 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-04-16 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-04-16 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-04-17 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2012-04-17 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-04-18 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 commentsApr 17

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Mar 292012-03-29 00:00:00 UTC2012-03-30 00:00:00 UTC110
Mar 302012-03-30 00:00:00 UTC2012-03-31 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 312012-03-31 00:00:00 UTC2012-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 12012-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2012-04-02 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 22012-04-02 00:00:00 UTC2012-04-03 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 32012-04-03 00:00:00 UTC2012-04-04 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 42012-04-04 00:00:00 UTC2012-04-05 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 52012-04-05 00:00:00 UTC2012-04-06 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 62012-04-06 00:00:00 UTC2012-04-07 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 72012-04-07 00:00:00 UTC2012-04-08 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 82012-04-08 00:00:00 UTC2012-04-09 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 92012-04-09 00:00:00 UTC2012-04-10 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 102012-04-10 00:00:00 UTC2012-04-11 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 112012-04-11 00:00:00 UTC2012-04-12 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 122012-04-12 00:00:00 UTC2012-04-13 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 132012-04-13 00:00:00 UTC2012-04-14 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 142012-04-14 00:00:00 UTC2012-04-15 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 152012-04-15 00:00:00 UTC2012-04-16 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 162012-04-16 00:00:00 UTC2012-04-17 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 172012-04-17 00:00:00 UTC2012-04-18 00:00:00 UTC202

What Hacker News says

3 sources
I really have to say I strongly disagree with Kenneth Ballenegger's characterization at the beginning of the second paragraph of the developer who was "forced to rename his open source project." Clicking on the link provided, that's clearly not what happened, unless you call him having a chat over Twitter with a friend of his "being forced." Reading over the guy's account, he was glad to do it, and felt like it was a great step to take. Talking as though it was some sort of situation where people ganged up on him to force him to take down something he worked hard on is more than a little misleading. Here, read it yourself and let me know if you think it sounds like he was "forced": https://github.com/whit537/assertEquals/blob/master/ANNOUNCE... That mischaracterization aside, though: I disagree with almost everything in this article, alth
Read the rest
ough I think I see where he's coming from. Yes, for us guys in tech, it can sometimes seem a bit scary watching how much damage it can do when a company gets hammered for sexism on Twitter. I think a lot of us get a sort of fear of that happening to us, and can get a bit defensive when we're told that we've done or said something sexist, racist, or otherwise bigoted. And because we are generally blind to the ways our privilege assists us every day, we tend to feel as though we're the ones being attacked, completely missing the fact that sexism still hurts women and holds them back. >>We cannot beat sexism until gender is no longer an issue. This point doesn't make much sense to me at all. I think this is supposed to mean that sexism is a problem when and only when people 'make gender an issue' - and to imply that discussing sexism makes everything worse because it naturally 'makes gender an issue.' The question here is natural - an 'issue' to whom? The whole point is supposed to be that sexism is an issue women in tech have to face even if we men have the privilege of completely ignoring it if we want. It wasn't an 'issue' in 1950 that women were forbidden from holding any authority in the office; it was just a fact of life. What really bothers me about this standard of victory over sexism - 'when gender is no longer an issue' - is that it sounds distinctly like a request that people please shut up about it already. Particularly when coupled with the next sentence... >>Keeping up the current level of discourse is making things worse. ... which, by the way, seems demonstrably wrong to me. Does anybody care to cite any statistics about women in tech right now? Women in business? I wonder if there's any metric by which the current discourse is actually making things worse. Sure, it's not fun to have to confront privilege and deal with inequality; but it makes us all better human beings, and that's the point.
In Sexism

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.