Re: [GRASS-dev] Add a possible decorators to gunittest

[Pietro]

Hi Vaclav,

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Vaclav Petras  wrote:
> Although I can see advantages of decorators, Python unittest package uses
> setUp() and tearDown() functions for that purpose. Introducing another
> mechanism might interfere with the execution of the tests. If nothing else,
> you would need to re-raise the exception to signal that the test failed. I
> suggest to try setUp() and tearDown() as unittest advocates and only when it
> won't work look at decorators (which are used in unittest but it different
> way).

ok, I changed it in r68183, now is using setUp and tearDown.

All the best

Pietro
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Re: [GRASS-dev] Add a possible decorators to gunittest

[Vaclav Petras]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Pietro  wrote:
>
> 1. overwrite the environment variables,
> 2. execute the test and
> 3. restore the environment variables.


In case the test involves just calling subprocesses, the best way probably
is to change their environment instead of changing the global one. This is
not applicable to function calls of course.

> Otherwise if the function raise an exception the current
> implementation will not restore the environment variables back to
> their original value.


Although I can see advantages of decorators, Python unittest package uses
setUp() and tearDown() functions for that purpose. Introducing another
mechanism might interfere with the execution of the tests. If nothing else,
you would need to re-raise the exception to signal that the test failed. I
suggest to try setUp() and tearDown() as unittest advocates and only when
it won't work look at decorators (which are used in unittest but it
different way).

Vaclav
___
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev