[TIP] PythonTestingToolsTaxonomy: link to Selenium bindings for Python

[Geoff Bache]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Mark Sienkiewicz <sienkiew at stsci.edu> wrote:
> Laura Creighton wrote:
>>
>> I don't want things that appear to be unmaintained to be deleted.
>> I'm pretty hostile to the notion that somehting needs to have
>> active development in order to be useful, and I think that is
>> what you would be detecting.
>
> I agree, but there is still useful information to be had.  A categorization
> that comes to mind is:
>
> complete + NO active development:  This is what I am looking for.  A tool
> that works.
>
> complete + active development: This is also what I am looking for.  A tool
> that works, but may get better.
>
> NOT complete + active development:  Maybe worth contributing to; maybe worth
> checking back later.
>
> NOT complete + NO active development:  Probably abandoned and probably not
> worth looking at.  I very rarely find an abandoned project that is worth
> anything to me.

I agree this would be great - if we could somehow get and obtain this
info. Problem is, I'm not going to be downloading 15 tools and
learning enough about them all to judge "completeness" and nor is
anyone else I suspect. "Date of last activity" is however relatively
easy to extract.

>> Links to source code, even if that is all that is there, is useful for
>> people who want to develop something and want to check how other
>> people have already done it.
>
> The problem is not "source code: yes", but "documentation: no".  So, another
> categorization:
>
> - documentation: good.  I can see what it does.
>
> - NO documentation:  I'm not even sure what it does... is it worth spending
> any time figuring it out?

I agree. Though it admittedly depends on what we see the purpose of
the page as. I see the purpose as being a useful resource for people
looking for usable test tools, rather than an enclyclopaedia of every
test tool effort there's ever been in Python. Why would anyone want to
start from undocumented source written in 2003 instead of one of the
other options?

/Geoff