[TIP] unittest & TDD

[Laura Creighton]

In a message of Sun, 11 Mar 2007 06:47:20 MST, "Bob Ippolito" writes:
>On 3/11/07, Atul Varma <varmaa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/4/07, Bob Ippolito <bob at redivi.com> wrote:
>> > I agree that unittest is straightforward, but it's annoying (on its
>> > own). Too much unnecessary cruft.
>>
>> I agree.  Out of curiosity, is there any movement towards making
>> py.test or nose a part of Python's standard library?  The main reason
>> my company used unittest is, quite honestly, because we didn't look at
>> any other testing options when we started writing our unit tests,
>> assuming that the testing framework that shipped with Python was just
>> "the one way to do it" (a la Python's motto).  We weren't huge fans of
>> its complexity (or rather, the boilerplate cruft caused by said
>> complexity), but we dealt with it.  The fact that unittest was pretty
>> well documented helped a lot, too, but as soon as I saw py.test I had
>> wished I'd known about it before I started writing unit tests.
>>
>
>That doesn't really happen until people ask for it on python-dev
>(which may require writing a PEP). I think that nose is probably
>aligned with the stdlib unittest enough and popular enough to where it
>would be a good fit, but the eternal questions are is it mature enough
>and who is going to maintain it in the stdlib.
>
>Since easy_install became widespread, I stopped caring about the
>stdlib... it just doesn't seem worth the process involved in proposing
>and actualizing a stdlib change when third party installation is so
>painless and can be updated at a different release cycle than Python
>itself.
>
>-bob

I am not sure the py.test maintainers want py.test to be part of
the standard library.  It would mean losing control of when we could
make new releases.

Laura