Thus spake Ben Finney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
PEP 8 only has the force that people grant it. Nevertheless, it's a
style guide that's widely accepted in the Python community, and
adhering to it in one's code makes it easier to read for the majority,
because it reduces the needless inconsistencies
2008/4/5, Aldo Cortesi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thus spake Matthieu Brucher ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
How does it compare to the nose framework ?
As far as the base unit testing functionality is concerned, I think
they try to address similar problems. Both have assert-based testing
with inspection
Thus spake Matthieu Brucher ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
One last question : does it take doctests into account ?
I'm afraid that Pry is unashamedly incompatible with any other unit
testing method in existence, including but not limited to doctest,
unittest, nose and py.test. ;)
Some day I might
Aldo Cortesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm afraid that Pry is unashamedly incompatible with any other unit
testing method in existence, including but not limited to doctest,
unittest, nose and py.test. ;)
Which makes the deliberate deviations from PEP 8 naming a large black
mark against it.
On Behalf Of Ben Finney
Aldo Cortesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some day I might experiment with extending Pry to gather and run
doctests and unittests. At this stage, however, I don't believe the
(significant) effort would be worth it.
That's very unfortunate. Until it plays better
Thus spake Ben Finney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I'm afraid that Pry is unashamedly incompatible with any other unit
testing method in existence, including but not limited to doctest,
unittest, nose and py.test. ;)
Which makes the deliberate deviations from PEP 8 naming a large black
mark
Aldo Cortesi wrote:
Thus spake Ben Finney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I'm afraid that Pry is unashamedly incompatible with any other unit
testing method in existence, including but not limited to doctest,
unittest, nose and py.test. ;)
Which makes the deliberate deviations from PEP 8 naming a
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Aldo Cortesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I should also note that converting from unittest to Pry is quite simple
- Pry's test structure is a superset of unittest's, and AutoTree was
explicitly written to make unittest-style testing possible, meaning
that no
Thus spake Roy Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I've been following this thread for a while with a mix of amusement and
alarm. Contributing code to the community is a good thing, and should be
celebrated. If people like it, they will use it. If they don't, it will
be ignored. None of which
Thus spake Steve Holden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
It probably reflects personal preference, but it's a preference that
many people will maintain. I understand that PEP 008 was largely
directed at standard library authors and maintainers, but anything
that claims wide utility should have ambitions
Aldo Cortesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thus spake Ben Finney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I'm afraid that Pry is unashamedly incompatible with any other unit
testing method in existence, including but not limited to doctest,
unittest, nose and py.test. ;)
I didn't write this. Please preserve
On 2 Apr., 06:38, Aldo Cortesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Ben,
We are happy to announce the first release of Pry, a unit testing
framework.
Thanks for the announcement, and for the software.
If Pry is already incompatible with xUnit (i.e. Python's 'unittest'),
could we please have
Thus spake Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
But you could have added the integration of code coverage and other
helpful features with unittest as a conservative extension giving
everyone a chance to use it directly with existing tests instead of
forcing them to rewrite their tests for bike
2008/4/5, Aldo Cortesi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thus spake Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
But you could have added the integration of code coverage and other
helpful features with unittest as a conservative extension giving
everyone a chance to use it directly with existing tests instead of
On 5 Apr., 10:26, Aldo Cortesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, why did I re-write it? Well, I needed a test framework that didn't
have the deep flaws that unittest has. I needed good hierarchical
fixture management. I needed something that didn't instantiate test
suites automatically, freeing me
Thus spake Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I'm not entirely sure what you are claiming here. From source
inspections I can see that TestSuite instances are instantiated by the
TestLoader and you are free to derive from TestLoader, overwrite its
methods and pass around another instance than
Thus spake Matthieu Brucher ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
How does it compare to the nose framework ?
As far as the base unit testing functionality is concerned, I think
they try to address similar problems. Both have assert-based testing
with inspection and re-parsing of assert exceptions for better
On 5 Apr., 12:26, Aldo Cortesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus spake Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I'm not entirely sure what you are claiming here. From source
inspections I can see that TestSuite instances are instantiated by the
TestLoader and you are free to derive from TestLoader,
On Apr 5, 12:54 pm, Aldo Cortesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus spake Matthieu Brucher ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
How does it compare to the nose framework ?
As far as the base unit testing functionality is concerned, I think
they try to address similar problems. Both have assert-based testing
On 5 Apr., 12:26, Aldo Cortesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus spake Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I'm not entirely sure what you are claiming here. From source
inspections I can see that TestSuite instances are instantiated by the
TestLoader and you are free to derive from TestLoader,
Thus spake Michele Simionato ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
As far as the base unit testing functionality is concerned, I think
they try to address similar problems. Both have assert-based testing
with inspection and re-parsing of assert exceptions for better error
messages. Both try to provide
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Aldo Cortesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus spake Matthieu Brucher ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
How does it compare to the nose framework ?
As far as the base unit testing functionality is concerned, I think
they try to address similar problems. Both have
Thus spake BJörn Lindqvist ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Isn't nose tree-based too? You can select both single test-cases
suites or directories to run.
Well, in a way, perhaps. But not in the sense that Pry is. In Pry you
can nest test fixtures (setUp/tearDown pairs) within test fixtures,
allowing
Thus spake Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
A properly extended framework would of course be compatible with all
existing test suites. This has nothing to do with monkeypatching. I'm
not sure you even understand the concepts you are talking about.
I'm afraid I'm just going to have to assure
Aldo, when you confuse inheritance ( using an OO framework properly )
with monkey patching no one can draw much different conclusions than I
did.
I'm still very positive about the integration of code coverage tools
with UT frameworks and of course I've nothing against adding a CLI.
Actually
Thus spake Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Aldo, when you confuse inheritance ( using an OO framework properly )
with monkey patching no one can draw much different conclusions than I
did.
I guess you do always run the risk of being pelted with something from
the peanut gallery when you
Aldo Cortesi wrote:
Thus spake Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Aldo, when you confuse inheritance ( using an OO framework properly )
with monkey patching no one can draw much different conclusions than I
did.
I guess you do always run the risk of being pelted with something from
the
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Aldo Cortesi wrote:
| Thus spake Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
**tweet** Time out
| Aldo, when you confuse inheritance ( using an OO framework properly )
| with monkey patching no one can draw much different
On Apr 5, 5:05 pm, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kay at least has a long history as a contributor in this group, so
people know how to interpret her remarks and know that her contributions
are made on the basis of a deep understanding of Python. She is
I am pretty much sure you are
Steve,
Kay at least has a long history as a contributor in this group, so
people know how to interpret her remarks and know that her contributions
are made on the basis of a deep understanding of Python. She is far from
belonging to the peanut gallery, and to suggest otherwise betrays
Aldo Cortesi wrote:
Steve,
Kay at least has a long history as a contributor in this group, so
people know how to interpret her remarks and know that her contributions
are made on the basis of a deep understanding of Python. She is far from
belonging to the peanut gallery, and to suggest
On 5 Apr., 23:54, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be fair I wasn't commenting on the whole thread, more on the angry
nature of your final reply, and didn't really consider Kay's remarks
fully. So perhaps I could ask *both* of you to be more civil to each
other, and leave it at that?
Hi Jim,
Thus spake j vickroy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
We are happy to announce the first release of Pry, a unit testing framework.
Features
* Built-in coverage analysis, profiling, and quick-and-dirty
benchmarking
* Assertion-based tests - no ugly failUnless*,
Aldo Cortesi wrote:
We are happy to announce the first release of Pry, a unit testing framework.
Features
* Built-in coverage analysis, profiling, and quick-and-dirty benchmarking
* Assertion-based tests - no ugly failUnless*, failIf*, etc. methods
* Tree-based test
We are happy to announce the first release of Pry, a unit testing framework.
Features
* Built-in coverage analysis, profiling, and quick-and-dirty benchmarking
* Assertion-based tests - no ugly failUnless*, failIf*, etc. methods
* Tree-based test structure for better
Aldo Cortesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We are happy to announce the first release of Pry, a unit testing
framework.
Thanks for the announcement, and for the software.
If Pry is already incompatible with xUnit (i.e. Python's 'unittest'),
could we please have names that adhere to the Python
Hi Ben,
We are happy to announce the first release of Pry, a unit testing
framework.
Thanks for the announcement, and for the software.
If Pry is already incompatible with xUnit (i.e. Python's 'unittest'),
could we please have names that adhere to the Python style guide
37 matches
Mail list logo
