[TIP] Advice on location of tests modules

[Olemis Lang]

Hi !
:)

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:

> On Feb 27, 2014, at 04:43 PM, Olemis Lang wrote:
>
> >Recently a discussion has started about the location of test modules
> >developed for Apache Bloodhound [1]_ .
>
> Paraphrasing the old joke, if you ask 5 Python programmers you'll get 10
> opinions. :)
>
>
yes , I know ... that's exactly one of the reasons why I started this
thread , just to explore other people's ideas .


> In my capacity as Debian and Ubuntu developer, I've certainly seen at least
> all three of your variations in packages I've looked at.  For my own
> software,
> I strongly prefer:
>
> >  1. Our modified copy of Trac includes multiple test modules
> >     i.e. one source code per-package all over across the whole hierarchy
>
> I put a tests subpackage and a docs subpackage right under the subpackage
> that
> they are testing (or documenting <wink>).  I do it this way, especially for
> big source trees like Mailman because I want the tests and docs to be as
> close
> to the code as possible.  It makes it *way* easier to find the test for a
> specific module.
>
>
makes sense to me with unit tests only ...


> >I'd rather prefer the option (3) because of the reasons I mentioned in
> >bh:comment:3:ticket:770 [2]_ which I repeat below :
> >
> >  - Having a single top-level tests module (as opposite to Trac's
> >    scattered test modules)
> >    is convenient considering the package test discovery code
>
> I've gravitated toward nose2 for all my packages, and it has no problem
> with
> layout #1.
>
>
... but #1 seems more complicated when dealing with functional tests
considering modules import-ed along the way .


> >  - For code with functional + unit tests (i.e. quite often) I prefer to
> >    write tests in a separate package hierarchy because :
> >    * they should not be installed in production deployments
>
> I personally don't care much about that.  I think it doesn't harm anything
> to
> have the tests installed, and might even be useful for debugging.  But I'm
> not
> philosophically opposed to omitting the tests from production code, and in
> some of the Debian packaging I've done, we relegate such test directories
> to a
> "-dev" package.
>

Good point . However the Debian packaging system can do a number of install
operations not available (afaik) in distutils / setuptools / distribute /
pip ... package management ecosystem .
cmiiw

-- 
Regards,

Olemis - @olemislc

Apache(tm) Bloodhound contributor
http://issues.apache.org/bloodhound
http://blood-hound.net

Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/

Featured article:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.idyll.org/pipermail/testing-in-python/attachments/20140228/256837f1/attachment-0001.htm>