[issue18232] running a suite with no tests is not an error

Change by Michał Górny : -- versions: +Python 3.10 -Python 3.4 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue18232] running a suite with no tests is not an error

Change by Michał Górny : -- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +23655 stage: -> patch review pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/24893 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue18232] running a suite with no tests is not an error

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: With more experience, I agree that 0/0 tests passing should not be a pass. -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue18232] running a suite with no tests is not an error

Change by Kamil Turek : -- nosy: +kamilturek ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.pyt

[issue18232] running a suite with no tests is not an error

Michał Górny added the comment: I'm not convinced we need something that complex here but I think it would make sense to make 'unittest discover' fail when it doesn't discover a single test. As packagers, we've been bitten more than once by packages whose tests suddenly stopped being discove

[issue18232] running a suite with no tests is not an error

Michael Foord added the comment: I'd agree that a test run that actually runs zero tests almost always indicates an error, and it would be better if this was made clear. I have this problem a great deal with Go, where the test tools are awful, and it's very easy to think you have a successful

[issue18232] running a suite with no tests is not an error

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: You missed my point, which is that tools consuming subunit streams are already able to consider 'no tests found' to be an error. Conversely, when I run the suite on my Windows box, I usually consider only 1 or 2 errors to be success. After unittest reports act

[issue18232] running a suite with no tests is not an error

Robert Collins added the comment: @Terry in principle you're right, there are an arbitrary number of things that can go wrong, but in practice what we see is either catastrophic failure where nothing is loaded at all *and* no error is returned or localised failure where the deferred reporting

[issue18232] running a suite with no tests is not an error

Ezio Melotti added the comment: > I'm thinking I'll add a '--min-tests=X' parameter to unittest.main, > with the semantic that if there are less than X tests executed, the > test run will be considered a failure, The minimum number of tests is a fast moving target, and unless you know exactly h

[issue18232] running a suite with no tests is not an error

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: I do not quite see the need to complicate the interface for most users in a way that does not really solve all of the realistic problems. import unittest unittest.main() # Ran 0 tests in 0.000s OK --- It seems to me that a continuous integration system should

[issue18232] running a suite with no tests is not an error

Changes by Ezio Melotti : -- components: +Tests nosy: +ezio.melotti type: -> enhancement versions: +Python 3.4 ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue18232] running a suite with no tests is not an error

New submission from Robert Collins: In bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/subunit/+bug/586176 I recorded a user request - that if no tests are found, tools consuming subunit streams should be able to consider that an error. There is an analogous situation though, which is that if discover returns