When it comes to testing without the GUI, it may not be the role of the testing framework to provide that.<div><br></div><div>Otherwise, if pyFit is not good enough in terms of debug, maybe FITPro is ? Did you try that ? <a href="http://sourceforge.net/projects/fitpro/">http://sourceforge.net/projects/fitpro/</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>I also have the impression that Robot and Fit differ in other areas. Robot seems to be better at handling high-level reports <font class="Apple-style-span" color="#551A8B"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://robotframework.googlecode.com/svn/tags/robotframework-2.0.4/doc/userguide/src/ExecutingTestCases/report_failed.png">http://robotframework.googlecode.com/svn/tags/robotframework-2.0.4/doc/userguide/src/ExecutingTestCases/report_failed.png</a></span></font>), while Fit is more about testing that a certain of expected values are correct (<a href="http://www.jamesshore.com/fit/introduction/progress.gif">http://www.jamesshore.com/fit/introduction/progress.gif</a>)</div>
<div><br></div><div>As far as I understand:</div><div>- Robot will take a number of scenarios, and for each of them, it will stop at the first error/failure. </div><div>- The Fit concept is different: running a scenario that can contain a number of failures (expected values that are not correct). Obviously, you can run a number of scenarios too.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Please Robot and Fit guys correct me if I'm wrong.</div><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_quote">2009/7/28 yoav glazner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:yoavglazner@gmail.com">yoavglazner@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Laurent Ploix <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:laurent.ploix@gmail.com" target="_blank">laurent.ploix@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="padding-left:1ex;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:#ccc 1px solid">
<div> </div>
<div>Could you explain what made you consider pyFit and Robot an "overhead compare to the benefit" ? That may help people suggest other alternatives... (and maybe consider building another framework if they agree)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>laurent</div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
</div><div>I'll start saying what are the benefits:</div>
<div>* easy to read test that anyone can understand (better in pyFit less in Robot)</div>
<div>* integration with Hudson (Continues Integration) - (good in PyFit , Robot and Nose...)</div>
<div>* fancy reports on the tests (this is not that important to us)</div>
<div>* Connecting between a text/table based Test Case and the real Code test.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>overhead:</div>
<div>* When a test fails in Pyfit its not clear why. if it failed with exception then its very unreadable.</div>
<div>* PyFit requires annoying metadata to be written on each table.</div>
<div>* Robot does provide better failure analysis but doesn't provide the clear PyFit test case definition.</div>
<div>* Mapping keywords in Robot is not hard but making the test-case look like a test case in Word requires a lot of keywords and work.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>none of the frameworks provided in kind of stub object to help testing without the GUI layer.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Yoav.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
testing-in-python mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:testing-in-python@lists.idyll.org">testing-in-python@lists.idyll.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/testing-in-python" target="_blank">http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/testing-in-python</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Laurent Ploix<br><br><a href="http://lauploix.blogspot.com/">http://lauploix.blogspot.com/</a><br>
</div>