On 25/08/2014 20:54, Skip Montanaro wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamore...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If you wish to write tests using something that can be compiled out please
don't let me stop you. Having said that if nose or even nose2 works for you
why not stick with it? There's also testfixtures, pytest, doctest and
presumably others. Horses for courses?
The test cases are run independently of the actual installed code
base, so use of the assert statement is, at best, a minor issue. We
don't use -O where I work either. Certainly, for me, the possibility
that code might get compiled out was outweighed by its convenience.
The nose folks say nose v1 will no longer be extended, that nose2 is
the future. Alas, the API changed for plugins (which I'm currently
trying unsuccessfully to get working). A couple questions to that list
have so far gone unanswered (granted one of them was today), and
before my questions, the latest thread with any replies was dated Aug
6. (That indicates to me that the nose group is pretty quiet.) Seeing
that nose2 was mostly unittest2 and no longer having any <2.7
constraint, I thought I would give it a try. Unfortunately, from my
perspective it appears that the authors of that package mostly came up
with a bunch of different spellings of "assert", requiring a bunch of
tedious unit test changes for no obvious benefit. I realize that is
almost certainly an unfair criticism, that there is more under the
covers, but the lack of support for the assert statement is a problem
for me.
Skip
There's activity on this list if it helps gmane.comp.python.testing.general
I've also seen a reference to tox there. Whatever happened to "There
should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."? :)
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
