ned at nedbatchelder.com
Sat Oct 30 05:10:08 PDT 2010
Wow, everyone is being really hard on Rhett! Rhett, welcome to the
list, we don't always jump down the throats of people excited to share
something with us.
Sure, it would be great if there was One True testing system, and yes,
it seems like much of what Rhett built was available somewhere in the
Python testing world. Maybe that means we need to do a better job
promoting and explaining what we've got to offer. Reimplementing things
seems to be endemic to the Python world, so let's not dump all over
Rhett for doing it. Maybe his take on things is a good one that we can
And some of us have been guilty ourselves of implementing from scratch
instead of adding to an existing project (*cough* figleaf *cough*), so
how about we give Rhett a break and find out what he's got. I agree
with Mark: when a company with bottom-line business to worry about takes
the time to open-source their code, it's a good thing.
On 10/29/2010 8:30 PM, C. Titus Brown wrote:
>>> 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.
More information about the testing-in-python