C. Titus Brown
ctb at msu.edu
Fri Oct 29 17:30:03 PDT 2010
> > Actually, the whole idea of
> > "here's yet another Python testing framework, incompatible with all
> > other Python testing frameworks" makes me sad.
> I hear you. It's fairly easy to transition from unittest to testify,
> but that's not the
> same thing as compatibility. However, I think it's pretty rare for a
> project to switch
> test frameworks or migrate tests between projects, so compatibility
> between frameworks
> doesn't seem that interesting.
> Testify is indeed Yet Another Test Framework, but more ideas is better
> for everyone no ?
More ideas would have been good, yes :).
The ability to run tests in parallel, easily, is probably the most significant,
but py.test has had it for a while and nose does it now. I haven't used it
myself but that's because I'm a luddite.
So we have a bunch of nearly identical test frameworks, all with
slight syntactic differences, all serving nearly the same purpose within
slightly different constraints, with various levels of internal mungery.
People keep on telling me that their framework or approach is better,
or somehow rawks, but since they mostly decline to document this
simply enough for me to understand, or seem to regard arbitrary design
decisions and limitations as an "improvement", I remain unconvinced.
One more is hardly a catastrophe, I guess.
But I'm just a grumpy old man. Not as old as Terry, mind you, but old.
C. Titus Brown, ctb at msu.edu
More information about the testing-in-python