[TIP] Meta-test methods...

[Douglas Philips]

On or about 2009 Apr 23, at 9:24 AM, Jesse Noller indited:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Douglas Philips wrote:
>> Yes, it is full of all kinds of general functionality I do not need
>> and is missing what I do need, which is why I have my own variant on
>> unit test. And which is why I disagree with Jesse that nose is an
>> appropriate substrate for functional and device testing. There might
>> be a common substrate, but nose, or py.test, as they stand now, and  
>> as
>> they have signaled their forward directions, are not it.
>>
>
> Oh crap, I better go rewrite the few thousand tests I have running
> inside of them, which are largely function, long running tests. I knew
> I was doing something wrong. All these damned test generators which
> work exceedingly well for me must be turdlings of the turd
> implementation.

Fact: neither nose nor py.test provide anything above what unit test  
provides to solve my problem.
Fact: I never said they weren't useful for someone else.

I had no idea this list would be such an amusing minefield of drama!


> A> The contain some bit I don't need

nose and py.test contain nothing I need that isn't available in  
unittest. Oh, maybe I should just use Django to get more crap on top  
of a useless-to-me testing infrastructure, they're just a few more  
bits I don't need and a lot more hassle. Wheeee!


> I would rather take something already in the wild, customize it where
> needed, ignore the bits I don't need, and move on with my life.

Ha, that is too funny. That's exactly what I did with unittest.  
Looking for a way to leverage that into something I don't have to  
support myself. Using nose (or py.test) now I have two problems.


> nice thing about adopting something like Nose is that my tests written
> subclassing unittest.TestCase just work, and my tests which don't,
> also work.

And all nose or py.test gets me is another dependency wad of code that  
I doesn't provide anything I need. Wheeee!


> I know this is a philosophical difference: I would rather leverage
> nose where I can then maintain a custom in house framework - I get
> paid to ensure the quality of a product, not to screw with frameworks
> all day. Ergo, mercenary-drive-development.

How nice for you, but then I never said you shouldn't do that. :)
Funny I get paid to do the exact same thing; farking around with a  
testing framework that provides me no ROI isn't it.
It's hilarious that you think because nose is the bees knees for your  
testing that therefore I should maintain a custom in house version of  
it too. Well, truly you have a staggering ego. Hope you feel better  
soon!

-Doug