On 3/3/10 10:46 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote: > Chris McDonough wrote: > >> Here's the set of commands that get run to test e.g. repoze.bfg: >> >> /opt/Python-2.6.4/bin/virtualenv --no-site-packages r$SVN_REVISION/ >> >> r$SVN_REVISION/bin/easy_install nose coverage nosexcover > > No sex cover, ey? That sounds like an STD risk.
Ha! > >> cd repoze.bfg-trunk >> >> ../r$SVN_REVISION/bin/python setup.py develop >> >> ../r$SVN_REVISION/bin/python setup.py nosetests --with-xunit \ >> --with-xcoverage > > Cool. I guess there's a standard there somewhere that both Cobertura and > nose adheres to. I think Ned B. added Cobertura-compat output to coverage.py for just this purpose (and it's exposed via nose by --with-xcoverage). > I wonder how hard it is to run Zope/Plone tests through > nose in this way. I'm guessing quite. I suspect it would be a "project". At one point, though, I made the ZODB tests runnable via "setup.py test" however (previously they were hardwired to be run via "bin/test" in a buildout), so it is possible to do. Might be better though to try to convince zope.testing's coverage support to output a coverage.xml file. That's really all that's necessary; I forgot to mention that in the "Cobertura xml report pattern" box in the Hudson UI, we have "**/coverage.xml". - C _______________________________________________ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
