<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Ringo De Smet wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:e20d07ca0911190255l78ca76d8x768f8928fbafbf2@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hello Robert,
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'm curious why you are moving to nose, if you have a working
environment already. (And I mean no disrepect to nose by asking this -
I'm just curious).
Separately. are you aware of <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://pypi.python.org/pypi/junitxml">http://pypi.python.org/pypi/junitxml</a>, which
can also provide xml output but without being as either-or as xmlrunner?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Migrating to nose is not only done for it's junit plugin, but later on
we will also integrate test coverage. Actually, the plugin
architecture of nose was the main criterium for the migration, since
it aligns with our Python test plans.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I think moving to nose is a great idea, but I want to clarify one
point: while nose has great integration with coverage.py, you can use
coverage without nose just fine. If you run your tests today with (for
example):<br>
<br>
python my_test_runner.py foo blah bar<br>
<br>
then you can measure test coverage with:<br>
<br>
coverage run my_test_runner.py foo blah bar<br>
<br>
I'm sure you have other reasons to move to nose, and you should
continue with your plans, I just didn't want there to be a
misconception about nose being a prerequisite for getting coverage
measurement.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:e20d07ca0911190255l78ca76d8x768f8928fbafbf2@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Ringo
</pre>
</blockquote>
--Ned.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://nedbatchelder.com">http://nedbatchelder.com</a><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>