Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

2009/10/2 Javier Guerra > > > - if there's no 'failure record' run all > - if there's some record, first test those that have failed the last time > - if they still fail, stop there > - if there's no further failures, rerun the whole set > > +1, that sounds like a good

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

> - if there's no 'failure record' run all > - if there's some record, first test those that have failed the last time >   - if they still fail, stop there >   - if there's no further failures, rerun the whole set That's a pretty cool idea. I haven't seen this kind of behavior before but it

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:10 AM, Harro wrote: > > Sounds like a bad plan, what if by fixing the failed test you break > another one? while testing, when i found some not-obvious test failure and i have to run the test repeatedly, i try to run just this one until it passes.

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

Sounds like a bad plan, what if by fixing the failed test you break another one? On Sep 29, 6:03 pm, Rob Madole wrote: > I've been using nose for our tests, and one of the features that I > really like is the ability to run the tests again but filter only the > ones that

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

On Oct 2, 12:09 pm, Ned Batchelder wrote: > I would think the same logic applies to Django.  Nose needs to work with > lots of different projects, so they can't own the Django details, since > by that logic they'd also own the TurboGears logic, the Pylons logic, > the

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

Rob Madole wrote: >> From the point of view of encouraging the usage of nose, either would >> work fine. I think this is fits in to the conversation at DjangoCon >> about how we should go about encouraging Django users to explore the >> wider Python ecosystem. The important thing is that we can

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

> From the point of view of encouraging the usage of nose, either would > work fine. I think this is fits in to the conversation at DjangoCon > about how we should go about encouraging Django users to explore the > wider Python ecosystem. The important thing is that we can have some > official

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

On Sep 30, 5:47 am, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > I'm yet to be convinced that Nose should be the default test runner > for the simple reason that it doesn't come out of the box with Python. > However, I agree that using Nose with Django should be as painless as >

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Simon Willison wrote: > > On Sep 29, 7:34 pm, Rob Madole wrote: >> TEST_RUNNER = 'django.contrib.test.nose.run_tests' >> >> There might be some futzy bits to make that actually work, but I think >> it'd doable. > >

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Rob Madole wrote: > > I'll see if I can talk Jeff into adding what he's got as a start to > this.  It looks solid to me. > > Ticket and patches forthcoming... The nose test-runner that I'm currently using is at http://gist.github.com/197593.

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

I'll see if I can talk Jeff into adding what he's got as a start to this. It looks solid to me. Ticket and patches forthcoming... On Sep 29, 2:47 pm, Simon Willison wrote: > On Sep 29, 7:34 pm, Rob Madole wrote: > > > TEST_RUNNER =

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

On Sep 29, 7:34 pm, Rob Madole wrote: > TEST_RUNNER = 'django.contrib.test.nose.run_tests' > > There might be some futzy bits to make that actually work, but I think > it'd doable. I'd love to see this working. Obviously this would work just as well implemented as an

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

http://blog.jeffbalogh.org/post/57653515/nose-test-runner-for-django It's certainly been done and doesn't require changes to Django. On Sep 29, 1:34 pm, Rob Madole wrote: > Ok, --failfast would be nice too :D, I think I remember seeing a > ticket on that.  So make that 4

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

Ok, --failfast would be nice too :D, I think I remember seeing a ticket on that. So make that 4 features from nose... Which would be great if the test is third or fourth in the stack. If it's the last test in 50, it would loose it's effectiveness. I know, I know. If you are running 50 tests

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

Yep, I use the pdb stuff too. That would be handy. The way this works in nose is through the testid plugin. Typically you do this: nosetests --with-id --failed This will create a file called .noseids in the current working directory. You can make it use something else by saying: nosetests

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Simon Willison wrote: > > On Sep 29, 5:03 pm, Rob Madole wrote: >> I've been using nose for our tests, and one of the features that I >> really like is the ability to run the tests again but filter only the >> ones

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Simon Willison wrote: > > On Sep 29, 5:03 pm, Rob Madole wrote: >> I've been using nose for our tests, and one of the features that I >> really like is the ability to run the tests again but filter only the >> ones

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

On Sep 29, 5:03 pm, Rob Madole wrote: > I've been using nose for our tests, and one of the features that I > really like is the ability to run the tests again but filter only the > ones that caused a problem. > > I'm thinking it would look something like this > > ./manage.py

Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

I've been using nose for our tests, and one of the features that I really like is the ability to run the tests again but filter only the ones that caused a problem. I'm thinking it would look something like this ./manage.py test --failed Does this sound worthwhile to anybody? Rob