[TIP] Test discovery for unittest
olemis at gmail.com
Tue Apr 7 09:22:56 PDT 2009
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Marius Gedminas <marius at gedmin.as> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 09:33:56AM -0500, Olemis Lang wrote:
>> >> We should allow test_suite to return None by the way - meaning no
>> >> tests for the module / package.
>> > Uhm, sure.
>> Why not just  - empty list - ?
> That doesn't make sense to me -- test_suite() returns a
> unittest.TestSuite (or something that quacks like one). I can see
> stretching that contract to return None, but not a plain list.
> Did you mean unittest.TestSuite() ?
Dont tell me, I potted the cue ball :-/
>> I'm skipping a long complicated list of arguments here, whcih
>> indicates the complexity inherent to this impl, not to mention the
>> intrincated semantics
>> Finally. I repeat. Why not to use dutest? What's wrong with it?
> (tongue-in-cheek) it's not in the stdlib?
> Honestly, I don't believe I've ever heard of dutest,
Never mind this is not big deal. Nobody knew about doctest unittest
API until it was out there ;) And I didnt know about others until I
suscribed to the list, so that's not the point IMHO. Maybe it is and
that's the reason.
The fact is to evaluate whether it's useful or not, and say :
- Yes, it has X, Y, and Z ; so we like it.
- No, it has X, Y, and Z ; so we like it *AT ALL* and it will never
> and if I had, I
> couldn't figure out "what does it give me over doctest's unittest API".
First of all it has implemented all those things some guys are trying
to implement right now about unittest test discovery, using the
collaborations approach inherent to unittest
> I'm now reading the PyPI page and falling asleep in the middle of the
> first bulleted item...
Perhaps this one is much better ... ;)
..  Doctest and unittest... now they'll live happily together
Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/
Se retira el BDFL ... ¿El fin de Python 3k?
More information about the testing-in-python