Am 06.07.2010, 13:12 Uhr, schrieb Martijn Faassen <faassen@startifact.com>:
What do you mean, a doctest embedded within another? I'm probably missing something.
No, it's probably me getting the explicit doctest call wrong. It looks to my novice eyes like print statement is being passed to a "doctest" method. In matters like these it's usually safe to assume I'm wrong! :-) Proposed solution: rewrite this particular doctest to use a test browser.
Furthermore, while it's great that form.txt actually runs I wasn't aware that it contained any additional tests that are not already run and I've always treated it as testable documentation not as an integral part of the formlib tests. But I'm ready to be believe this is a large misconception on my part.
I follow the principle that all testable stuff should actually be run during the tests - just in case.
hm, I don't think that can be argued with really, particularly given the amount of time I've actually studied this and other documents over reading the code. But I do think that, whether the module runs as specified, and whether the documentation is up to snuff, are of a different nature and, consequently, so are their failures. Shouldn't we be testing documentation differently? Charlie -- Charlie Clark Managing Director Clark Consulting & Research German Office Helmholtzstr. 20 Düsseldorf D- 40215 Tel: +49-211-600-3657 Mobile: +49-178-782-6226