Python Testing -- should be there uniformity?
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> first of all: Barry, Yaroslav don't hijack threads :) this is about
yeap... sorry... welcome new thread
> testing platform only generates a bit of confusion. Don't get me
> wrong, it's an interesting topic, only discussed in the wrong thread.
cool -- lets get it here?
> > do you have somewhere any documentation available on this infrastructure
> > so we could point upstreams to follow? are you recommending nose
> > as the testing framework?
> anyhow, since I'm at it: please don't force ANY testing tool; I kinda
> like unittest2, and it's available in python2.7 stdlib, and it's also
> backported to 2.4-2.6 (and even packaged for debian), and I don't want
> to be forced to use nose for my upstream development.
well, both "setup.py test" and "module.test()" sound like reasonable
interfaces to adhere to. Further details and specialization (setup.py
nosetest, arguments to test()) could be obviousely implementation
specific OR once again adhere to minimalistic common interface, i.e.
-v for verbose in cmdline, multiple instances to increase verbosity
verbose=int among arguments for .test() for verbosity control
?
--
.-.
=------------------------------ /v\ ----------------------------=
Keep in touch // \\ (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko /( )\ ICQ#: 60653192
Linux User ^^-^^ [175555]
Reply to: