[TIP] unittest2 and the future of nose

C. Titus Brown ctb at msu.edu
Thu Mar 4 14:05:10 PST 2010

On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 04:41:06PM -0500, J. Cliff Dyer wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 15:51 -0500, jason pellerin wrote:
> > And, crucially, it must not depend on me writing 90% of the code and
> > reviewing all of it. To succeed, nose2 needs to be a community project
> > -- not *my* project.
> > 
> > Which means it's not going to happen unless enough of you folks are
> > interested and have time to commit.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> I think the bulk of the effort should be put into unittest(2).  Nose
> came up to begin with because unittest(1) didn't do what people needed.
> I think the best scenario would be to have a unittest that obviates the
> need for a new nose.  Second best would be to have the new nose be as
> thin a layer above unittest as possible.

Michael will presumably jump in here, and I don't want to speak for him, but
here's my understanding:

unittest2 is part of the stdlib for 2.7 and 3.2+, and it's called 'unittest'.
unittest2 is available for those who want to use the newer features in older
versions of Python.  But it's going to be part of the stdlib.

The problem has been, and always will be, that things in the stdlib don't
move that fast.  So your favorite feature X (be it plugins, or whatnot)
is not going to evolve and adapt once it becomes part of the stdlib.

That may be OK, of course!

C. Titus Brown, ctb at msu.edu

More information about the testing-in-python mailing list