On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Christian Theune <ct@gocept.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 08:32:28AM -0400, Benji York wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net> wrote:
Is there a reason to advocate zope.testing over the others? Would it perhaps make more sense to use one of the more widely used tools instead of maintaing our own testing toolkit?
I'd also like for us to adopt one of the more widely used test runners, but as mentioned in replies, there are some features in zope.testing that we depend on. If someone were adequately motivated and had sufficient time (neither of which I have, so I suspect no one else does either), it would be interesting to attempt to endue another test runner with the features we need (layers, etc.).
I like our test runner and spent time refactoring it so we can actually start making changes again. I looked at other test runners (nose, py.test) and didn't find anything compelling (to me) that we didn't already have.
Christian
I am on Christian's side here: zope.testing is a great tool, used by many people, and with strong features, it looks like it does not need a lot of work to be usable without a buildout environment, and to have modern features nose and py.test provides. At least : 1. the console script (I'll add that in the trunk asap in any case) 2. being able to write tests without subclassing TestCase, in functions and classes (regexp based+ wrapping) 3. being able to create suites without any extra boiler-plate code, like nose does (afaik) Christian, are you willing to work on 2. and 3. ? ++ Tarek
-- Christian Theune · ct@gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 7 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development
-- Tarek Ziadé | Association AfPy | www.afpy.org Blog FR | http://programmation-python.org Blog EN | http://tarekziade.wordpress.com/