[TIP] nose/py.test plugins (was Re: Coverage.py 3.2b1: Branch coverage])

holger krekel holger at merlinux.eu
Wed Nov 11 14:31:31 PST 2009

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 14:39 -0500, ssteinerX at gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
>> Victoria G. Laidler wrote:
>>> holger krekel wrote:
>>>> Hi Vicky, Ned, Jason,
>>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:51 -0500, Victoria G. Laidler wrote:
>>>>> Hi Holger and Jason,
>>>>> Is there a write-up anywhere yet that has instructions for  
>>>>> plugin  authors who want to make their plugins compatible with  
>>>>> both test systems?
>>>>> Or maybe two simple-minded writeups, one to convert an existing  
>>>>> nose  plugin to support py.test, and the other for vice-versa?
>>>> no write-ups i know off. My impression is that people like to work  
>>>> from real-life examples.
>>> Uh, just for the record, I loathe working from examples instead of  
>>> from actual documentation. *My* impression is that people don't like 
>>> to write actual documentation! ;) and thus point people at code 
>>> instead.
> I find working, tested code much better than documentation which often  
> can't be tested and can fall out-of-date easily and with no  
> verification.

yes, doctests only go so far. 

> Give me a working, tested example every time.  Docs are great, but you  
> usually can't run docs in the debugger to see what's actually going on.

the alternative is to have some way to check more complex examples. 
If you get downloadable verified-to-work examples which came
with good explanations you probably wouldn't moind, would you?  :)


More information about the testing-in-python mailing list