[TIP] Unittest Changes
C. Titus Brown
ctb at msu.edu
Mon Jul 21 06:52:31 PDT 2008
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 02:47:22PM +0100, Michael Foord wrote:
-> C. Titus Brown wrote:
-> >On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 02:35:58PM +0100, Michael Foord wrote:
-> >-> Jonathan Lange wrote:
-> >-> Right - although virtually every project I've worked on with unittest
-> >-> had ended up with an ad-hoc test collection mechanism, so I think the
-> >-> 'discover_tests' features I've discussed are prima-facie needed.
-> >How difficult (and controversial) do you think it would be to provide a
-> >"test hook" that could reside in some top-level place (setup.py, or
-> >module __init__, or something) that would let you override
-> >discover_tests with your own evil algorithm?
[ ... ]
-> Can you suggest how it might be implemented in unittest?
-> If it can be done *cleanly* then it shouldn't be too controversial.
-> If a module has this attribute:
-> test_suite = 'something.else'
-> Then how should unittest invoke 'something.else' ? (And must
-> 'something.else' then present a suite compatible with a unittest
-> TestRunner ?)
These are good questions to which I do not have an answer :). I don't
know how hard it would be to layer a TestRunner-compatible interface on
top of py.test tests, in particular; it may make sense to go with
-> I'm not 100% convinced that this is the job of unittest, but if it can
-> be done cleanly in a way that is already compatible with nose then it
-> could be cool.
I don't think it has to be compatible with nose or py.test -- they are
fast-moving frameworks compared to stdlib and they can adapt! The
problem is to get something *into Python itself* so that we can have
standard ways of specifying these things.
Is it the job of unittest? Dunno. It should be in the stdlib IMO;
C. Titus Brown, ctb at msu.edu
More information about the testing-in-python