[TIP] including (or not) tests within your package

Michael Foord fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk
Thu Aug 12 11:22:52 PDT 2010

On 12/08/2010 13:14, Olemis Lang wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Fernando Perez<fperez.net at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Ben Finney<ben+python at benfinney.id.au>  wrote:
>>> Fernando Perez<fperez.net at gmail.com>  writes:
> [...]
>> Ultimately all I can say is that I have *extensive, real-world*
>> evidence of this approach having worked *fantastically* well for
>> ipython, numpy, scipy, nipy.*, etc over the last few years.
> The same can be stated by people that don't include tests in packages

I get the feeling that Olemis won't be satisfied until we all admit that 
he is correct and that everyone else's experiences and preferences are 


> ... so like I said , probably a matter of flavors + laziness + ... but
> IMO that doesn't justify that in certain percent of the production
> deployment environments the tests&  testing libs deployed in there
> will be definitely a decorative artifact>80% of the time , and do not
> provide functionality to the end-users , but may be a way to get
> support&  communicate with the dev-team , something that can be
> achieved by splitting the test package as well .
> ;o)


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 mailing list