[TIP] Ideology

holger krekel holger at merlinux.eu
Tue Apr 28 03:42:34 PDT 2009

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:05 -0400, Douglas Philips wrote:
> I notice that py.test has a lot of functionality I do -not- need for  
> doing distributed test execution.
> Nose and py.test have looks of "cool unit test" junk that I just  
> simply don't need doing my device testing.
> And I have a bunch of functionality in my test framework that unit- 
> tests don't need.
> If there were a nice composible framework, I could build just what I  
> need and so could you.
> I haven't looked at nose, but I did look a py.test and OMFG there are  
> tomes of code in there I will never use... how could nose be any  
> better when it is solving lots of problems I. do. not. have.

hum, i am curious.  Would you like to only invoke test framework/tool/support 
code that you need for your test use case?  Is that to to avoid complexity 
in debugging when things go wrong (potentially in the framework)? 

As to compasability: i think that nose and py.test both aim to 
provide their functionality through plugins these days.  This
sure enough comes with the cost of invoking plugin hooks but
ideally it should lead to the composability you wish for.  

On a sidenote, i guess if i started to read the source code of
the linux kernel and firefox, i'd find tons of code i do not
need for my usage - does this warrant to go for building my 
own OS and web browser?



More information about the testing-in-python mailing list