Yes? This proves that the writer thinks that everybody should obviously change from unittest to pytest. It does not prove the writer to be correct in all circumstances. Each project should make their own determination of whether a third-party library is worth it.
Sorry, I'm not following. I'm saying the article says less than 30% of repos scanned used Unittest. That was in response to you seeming to say that most projects would choose Unittest.
Oh, I see, you misunderstood me. I did not claim that “most projects would choose Unittest”. I claimed that for many projects, it would be wise to consider using unittest instead of, for example, pytest, as a way of minimizing usage of third-party modules.
> Every individual third-party library will have to overcome that threshold by being useful enough. And I doubt that, for most people, pytest is that much better to work with than the built-in unittest is.
This sounds more like you're saying that pytest wouldn't overcome that threshold; I was saying that has already happened, at least according to the article's statement.