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