Hi, On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 02:19:17PM +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Christian Theune <ct@gocept.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 01:43:05PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Tarek Ziadé wrote:
I am comparing nose, py.test and zope.testing, and I realized zope.testing does not install a console script at Python level.
it is not really a problem when working with a buildout-centric approach (thanks to zc.recipe.testrunner), but how can zope.testing be used with plain Python package ?
Is there any installer available, that would allow running zope.testing from the shell ?
To advocate zope.testing, I need to be able to demonstrate it can be used like the other tools available out there :D
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?
Good question,
I am not through in my comparison work, but the range of features are quite interesting in zope.testing ihmo, compared to others, and the zope community is used to it.
Make sure you look at the trunk as well. I did some major refactorings on the grok sprint.
Yes, and other provides test fixtures at method, class, module and (nose) package level.
Although, py.test and nose provide a lighter approach where there's no need to use the unittest base classes, as the tools wraps on the fly any function, class so there's no need for extra boiler-plate code.
The refactoring would be able to do that with a plugin.
py.test is using an iterator to launch tests immediatly while looking for them, the script is very fast
Even when gathering thousands of tests, this usually takes less than 1% of the time that the tests actually take to run. So it's a nice point but not that important IMHO.
This work i am doing is for a book, but I can publish the conclusion here if it can help making a decision on this.
At this point I think that the work being done by Collin Winter in Python 3K will lead to a new testing framework in Python/unitest that will be less Java-oriented and lighter for test writer.
From there, the third party libraries will probably be reduced to the test discovery part. (I don't think this will be integrated in python but I might be wrong)
And reporting and integrating debugging tools and ... I guess.
My point of view is that zope.testing should evolve a little bit to be usable naturally from the command line like others, and maybe be more flexible in the discovering part, by wrapping tests that are not based on TestCase.
The refactoring should allow this more easily. Christian -- 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