[TIP] nose2 backwards compatibility questions

jason pellerin jpellerin at gmail.com
Mon Aug 9 09:49:22 PDT 2010

Some questions for nose2-philes.

1) How much do you care about nose-style test discovery? nose does a
bunch of extra work to support real-world package layouts, such as
prepending ./lib and ./src to sys.path and looking in test* dirs even
when they aren't packages. Do we want nose2 to support that too? Even
if it requires overriding private methods in TestProgram (which it
will, as things stand)?

2) Is attempting to provide compatibilty with nose 0.9/0.10 plugins
(found via the setuptools entry points) worthwhile, even if it will be
limited? It definitely will be, maybe as limited as allowing
configuration only through the command line *or* only through config
files, but not both. Is it worth spending the nontrivial amount of
time that will be required to see if this will work?

3) Is it worthwhile trying to patch in nose's importer? nose's
importer allows tests to be organized in directories instead of
packages, even when the module names overlap. Is that a real-world use
case that we need to continue supporting?

The meta question in all of this is how much work we want to do to
make test suites that work with nose now, work with nose2 without
major changes. Is that a main priority, or is nose2 a clean break with
no implied promise of compatibility?

Your thoughts?



More information about the testing-in-python mailing list