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

[Olemis Lang]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Robert Collins
<robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 16:24 -0500, Olemis Lang wrote:
>>
>> But anyway , it is often possible to wrap the execution of those TFs
>> using customized instances of TestCase thereby recording the results
>> provided by those frameworks using TestResult & Co.
>>
>> PS: Does anybody knows about an exception to that «rule» ?
>
> Well yes, at the moment you cannot preserve the full resolution because
> the unittest module isn't very extensible.
>
> See for instance what nosetests's ErrorClassPlugin does / recommends:
> monkey patching the result object :- something totally incompatible if
> the result object is e.g. a gui result, or a remoting result.
>

If I have a free time in the next few days I'll try to figure out how
to implement this and 2.7 features without patching «too much»
existing classes. I will let you know either on success or failure ;o)

-- 
Regards,

Olemis.

Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/

Featured article:
Automated init.  -
http://bitbucket.org/osimons/trac-rpc-mq/changeset/e122336d1eb2/