[TIP] nose2 backwards compatibility questions
fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk
Tue Aug 10 11:27:27 PDT 2010
On 10/08/2010 17:09, Kumar McMillan wrote:
>> 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?
> I doubt this is worthwhile. It sounds like there will be a fairly
> easy and straightforward way to register plugins globally (via a
> config file) in unittest2 so as long as these instructions exist in a
> migration doc then porting plugins over should be fine. Well, the
> discovery of said plugins at least.
> On a side note, I do prefer something more "zero config" similar to
> how entry points worked. Nice write-up on it from Tarek:
That would be possible through Tarek's PEP 376 work. I still don't like
the idea of a plugin automatically being active just because you
installed some package that includes a unittest(2) / nose2 plugin. A
plugins command of some form would allow plugins to be activated without
the user having to mess with config files though.
>> 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?
> Again, I think it might make the most sense if alternate test
> discovery / loading processes were done in plugins.
Not currently possible with the discovery entry points for plugins. I'm
open to suggestions as to how that can be fixed.
>> 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?
> There are a lot of people using Nose for very big test suites .
> I'd guess a good amount of those suites will want to port to nose2 at
> some point. If the migration steps are minor then that's probably
> sufficient otherwise the more features that are ported over the
> better. I think if people want a clean break then they can probably
> just switch to unittest2, right?
The idea of nose2 is that it will still contain useful features not
implemented in unittest(2) - so people migrating from nose are not the
*only* target audience. nose2 will definitely be interesting in its own
>  I guess maybe this is some indication of adoption?
> (no idea how many people answered that survey). Or that the latest
> Nose has 5,000+ downloads.
Nice link - thanks. Wish they showed unittest2 separately though. :-)
>> Your thoughts?
>> testing-in-python mailing list
>> testing-in-python at lists.idyll.org
> testing-in-python mailing list
> testing-in-python at lists.idyll.org
READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
More information about the testing-in-python