fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk
Tue Apr 28 04:30:48 PDT 2009
holger krekel wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:00 +0100, Michael Foord wrote:
>> holger krekel wrote:
>>> 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.
>> How wild an idea is it to provide *some* compatibility with the plugin
>> system for unittest? Are they just too different or could a subset work?
> no clue currently. I hope to look into your
> 3k/unittest.py work in the upcoming next two months.
> My guess is that most plugins are quite simple - so i
> guess we might want to pick some examples and see what
> it practically takes to implement a plugin for multiple
> systems. Are you up for a bit of sprinting around
> EuroPython? :)
That's a *great* subject for a sprint. I wasn't intending to stay on for
sprints as time off is precious, but I will consider it now. :-)
A lot of what is going into unittest recently is probably already in
py.test in some form or another, it is just playing catch up. :-)
>> The fact that they provide stuff I will never use (every large framework
>> has that) is not a reason why I don't use them.
> right, although i think that complexity in debugging
> is a very valid concern - which is why test frameworks should
> be particularly well tested on all kinds of levels.
Agreed - although I've not *heard* of people having hard to diagnose
problems because of bugs in nose or py.test.
I vehemently agree that test frameworks should be tested - even in-house
All the best,
More information about the testing-in-python