[TIP] unitteset outcomes (pass/fail/xfail/error), humans and automation

Robert Collins robertc at robertcollins.net
Mon Dec 14 13:46:37 PST 2009

On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 16:46 +0100, holger krekel wrote:
> Do you have interest in trying to standardize some bits across tools
> and approaches?  I'd see the goal in having tools that process results
> somewhat uniformly. 

I have a huge interest in this: currently everyone that extends unittest
creates a little walled garden, because of limitations in unittest's
design. So I'm working at the root cause trying to make it possible for
multiple extensions to really place nice together.

As a for-instance, I've got reporters in subunit such as the stats
reporter, and filtering reporter, which are almost certainly useful
outside it, but:
 - there isn't currently a way to (easily) say 'hey, use this reporter'
from the unittest command line. (There is for trial, IFF its a trial
plugin. There is for nose. There is for py.test)
 - even if there was, there isn't a standard way for users that need
more resolution to add it without having to patch a lot of the system.

In my view its these sorts of issues that have driven 'test.py' - the
zope runner, trial, nose and even bzrlibs selftest to be separate tools
rather than plugins to a core framework. I hope that by coming up with
ways to interoperate that are really flexible, we can slowly converge

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.idyll.org/pipermail/testing-in-python/attachments/20091215/4efdd290/attachment.pgp>

More information about the testing-in-python mailing list