True, doctest is in the standard library :) >> but i guess it would not hurt if the pygame apidocs would have them too
The impression I got from reading the python testing archives is that is where it's strength is. Testable documentation sprinkled lightly throughout the source. Perhaps there is room for doctest. I personally am not against the idea. At the end of the day it's not up to me but we can certainly discuss with others. What do you personally find the biggest advantage of doctest is? -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Toni Alatalo Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 9:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [pygame] pygame unittests Nicholas Dudfield wrote: > Also, I am under the impression people want to stick with unittest. Been > wrong a zillion times before though. > i have not followed the situation recently, have used previously things like py.test and seen that like you told many testing frameworks have come around doctests are a part of the standard lib already so at least it's gonna be around, is not anymore yet-another-exotic-testing-tool, and has the unique feats that target other areas than the other libs. i guess people use several to complement, even. may not be best suited for everything, like some internal technical regressions perhaps, but i guess it would not hurt if the pygame apidocs would have them too.. might be even an interesting area to start from, dunno :o ~Toni
