Bug#839210: ITP: bash-unit -- bash unit testing enterprise edition framework for professionals
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Pascal Grange <pascal@grange.nom.fr>
* Package name : bash-unit
Version : 1.0.2
Upstream Author : Pascal Grange <pascal@grange.nom.fr>
* URL : https://github.com/pgrange/bash-unit
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: Bash
Description : bash unit testing enterprise edition framework for professionals
bash-unit is a unit testing software for bash.
It allows you to write unit tests (functions starting with test),
run them and, in case of failure, displays the stack trace with
source file and line number indications to locate the problem.
Source of a proposal for a debian package is available here:
https://github.com/pgrange/bash-unit_deb
This proposal for a debian package relies on gbp. How to build the
package is described in debian/README. I tried my best to follow
debian good practices but without a lot of experience in Debian
packaging.
This package is usefull for unit testing bash script or writing
unit tests in bash for other programs. For a full description
and documentation, please take a look at:
https://github.com/pgrange/bash-unit
I use this software in a daily basis on debian systems. A small
community is emerging, also using it and asking for easier ways
to install it on Debian systems.
I am aware of one alternative Debian package providing similar
functionaltities: shunit2. bash_unit and shunit2 propose
different testing methods and workflow. It has been reported that
people using bash_unit won't use shunit2 to write their tests but
I may not be objective about that ;) bash_unit officially supports
only bash where shunit2 tries to support more shells.
This package would improve bash unit testing support for Debian.
I am the main developer of bash-unit. I maintain the software and
intends to maintain de Debian package as well. As far as I
undertand the Debian package policy, I think I need a sponsor.
Hoping to find a sponsor for this package and lookin forward for
any feedback.
Regards,
Pascal.
Reply to: