[TIP] Ideology

[Michael Foord]

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. :-)

>   
> [snip...]
>> 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 
frameworks.

All the best,


Michael

> cheers,
> holger
>   


-- 
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/