On 2011-4-20 21:59, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> On 03/29/2011 02:43 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> On 3/29/11 14:40 , Stephan Richter wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, Marius led me recently to that path too. Write a narrative in text
>>> files
>>> and use doc strings of functions to do edge cases (or when you do
On 03/29/2011 02:43 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 3/29/11 14:40 , Stephan Richter wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, Marius led me recently to that path too. Write a narrative in text
>> files
>> and use doc strings of functions to do edge cases (or when you don't have
>> time
>> for the narrative). I am gett
On 03/27/2011 05:13 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> On 27 March 2011 15:54, Uli Fouquet wrote:
>
>> The (limited) experiences with py.test, however, were awesome. Some
>> points that are quite cool IMHO:
>>
>> - Easy finding of tests: just write some ``test_function`` in a
>> ``test_module`` and it w
On 3/29/11 14:40 , Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2011, Jim Fulton wrote:
>>> so I may forgo them.
>>
>> Which is a mistake. You should create separate tests. I typically put
>> large tests, dealing with main use cases where there is a definite
>> flow of activity in '.test' files.
On Tuesday, March 29, 2011, Jim Fulton wrote:
> > so I may forgo them.
>
> Which is a mistake. You should create separate tests. I typically put
> large tests, dealing with main use cases where there is a definite
> flow of activity in '.test' files. I do these in separate files
> because they'r
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> On 28 March 2011 15:45, Tres Seaver wrote:
>> The vast majority of the doctest testcases in zope.* packages fall into
>> this category: poor isolation, lots of edge cases which would obscure
>> any real narrative docs, of which there are al
On 28 March 2011 15:45, Tres Seaver wrote:
> The vast majority of the doctest testcases in zope.* packages fall into
> this category: poor isolation, lots of edge cases which would obscure
> any real narrative docs, of which there are almost none. I believe the
> conflict is intrinsic, here, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/28/2011 10:56 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> Hello,
>
> * Jim Fulton [2011-03-28 10:04]:
>> More generally, I'd love to see us adopt another test runner so that
>> we can stop maintianing zope.testrunner. When it was written at
>> the turn o
Hello,
* Jim Fulton [2011-03-28 10:04]:
> More generally, I'd love to see us adopt another test runner so that
> we can stop maintianing zope.testrunner. When it was written at
> the turn of the century, there weren't good alternatives. Personally,
> I think maintaining it is boring.
I agree,
Hello,
* Martin Aspeli [2011-03-27 16:13]:
> On 27 March 2011 15:54, Uli Fouquet wrote:
> > The (limited) experiences with py.test, however, were awesome. Some
> > points that are quite cool IMHO: [...]
I agree wholeheartedly with what Martin has said about py.test vs.
zope.testrunner.
> > - L
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/28/2011 10:04 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Martin Aspeli
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 27 March 2011 15:54, Uli Fouquet wrote:
>>
>>> The (limited) experiences with py.test, however, were awesome. Some
>>> points that ar
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Uli Fouquet wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Benji York wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Uli Fouquet wrote:
>> > - `assert` works like you would expect it to work in tests. No need
>> > to use `self.assertEqual()`` and friends (but you can if you prefer).
>>
>>
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Martin Aspeli
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 27 March 2011 15:54, Uli Fouquet wrote:
>
>> The (limited) experiences with py.test, however, were awesome. Some
>> points that are quite cool IMHO:
>>
>> - Easy finding of tests: just write some ``test_function`` in a
>> ``test
Hi there,
Benji York wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Uli Fouquet wrote:
> > - `assert` works like you would expect it to work in tests. No need
> > to use `self.assertEqual()`` and friends (but you can if you prefer).
>
> How do they deal with the fact that assert statements are drop
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Uli Fouquet wrote:
> - `assert` works like you would expect it to work in tests. No need
> to use `self.assertEqual()`` and friends (but you can if you prefer).
How do they deal with the fact that assert statements are dropped when
Python is run with -O?
--
Ben
Hi,
On 27 March 2011 15:54, Uli Fouquet wrote:
> The (limited) experiences with py.test, however, were awesome. Some
> points that are quite cool IMHO:
>
> - Easy finding of tests: just write some ``test_function`` in a
> ``test_module`` and it will be found and executed. That also makes
> py.
Hi there,
I first would like to thank everybody very much for the interesting and
elaborated answers to my last questions! I learned a lot about
registries and think that for now `plone.testing` (which in fact we
hadn't had on the screen) will help to solve some of the most urgent
issues we have w
Hi,
On 26 March 2011 14:18, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> Because, while test layers are nice because they have the above
> properties, I'm not too happy with the current implementation, namely
> the use (or is it abuse? ;-) of __bases__ and __name__, which leads
> very naturally to not-so-helpfu
Hello,
part two. :)
* Uli Fouquet [2011-03-24 01:05]:
> A big advantage of test layers over `pytest` testing scopes might be
> that you can spread your tests associated to a certain layer over many
> files/modules/packages as you like and the setup/teardown will
> nevertheless only be performed
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 22:35, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> locale.getpreferredencoding()
'UTF-8' on Ubuntu. And I think Windows has something else as well, but
then again Hanno was able to release Windows binaries. Strange that it
didn't fail there. Tres got rid of some warnings when compiling as
well
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/2/10 21:30 , Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 18:37, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> The issue is a non-ASCII character in the Changelog:
>>
>>
>> - - Added support for Python 3.1. Contributors:
>>
>>Lennart Regebro
>>Martin v Lö
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 18:37, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all (and especially Lennart),
>
> I need a quick sanity check. Trying to test a package of mine for Python
> 3 compatibility I built Python 3.1.2 and installed distribute into it.
> My pack
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all (and especially Lennart),
I need a quick sanity check. Trying to test a package of mine for Python
3 compatibility I built Python 3.1.2 and installed distribute into it.
My package depends on zope.interface. I am executing...
$ python3.1 set
Am 03.04.2010, 09:44 Uhr, schrieb Christian Theune :
> I'm missing the test summary from yesterday. Could it be that it choked
> on one of my mails?
I didn't for either zope or the cmf but normal service seems to have been
resumed.
Charlie
--
Charlie Clark
Managing Director
Clark Consulting &
Hi,
I'm missing the test summary from yesterday. Could it be that it choked
on one of my mails?
Christian
--
Christian Theune · c...@gocept.com
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1
Zope and Plo
On 2009-07-13, Marius Gedminas wrote:
>
> zope.testing supports test layers that muck up the global state
> irrepairably (by letting the layer's tearDown method raise
> NotImplementedError) and continues running the subsequent test layers in
> a fresh and squeaky-clean subprocess.
>
> Unfortunatel
On 2009-07-13, Marius Gedminas wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:27:50PM +, Reinout van Rees wrote:
>> I my test files, I had two separate zcml files (one registered a bit
>> more than the other). So I ended up with two separate ZCMLLayer
>> subclasses. And both did some grokking. So
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> Fortunately, the NotImplementedError in ZCMLLayer's tearDown is just a
> precaution, 99% of the time it is sufficient to run CleanUp.tearDown
> to get the global state restored to its pristine condition.
Keep in mind that a number of common
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:27:50PM +, Reinout van Rees wrote:
> On 2009-07-13, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> >
> > Whatever grok does that interferes with coverage should be fixed.
>
> I did some more debugging. In the end it boils down to this:
>
> With z3c.testsetup, you can specify a zcml fil
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> Personally I would much prefer for the unit test layer to be sorted
> first. It is already treated specially by zope.testing; I see no harm
> in hardcoding its sort order.
+1
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
___
On 2009-07-13, Marius Gedminas wrote:
>
> Whatever grok does that interferes with coverage should be fixed.
I did some more debugging. In the end it boils down to this:
With z3c.testsetup, you can specify a zcml file at the top of your test file.
z3c.testsetup creates a ZCMLLayer with that zcml
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 09:27:54AM +, Reinout van Rees wrote:
> zope/testing/testrunner/runner.py's order_by_bases() function orders
> layers by inheritance, basically. So if you've got a
> FunctionalTestLayer that inherits from some BasicTestLayer, the tests
> that use the basic test layer wi
zope/testing/testrunner/runner.py's order_by_bases() function orders
layers by inheritance, basically. So if you've got a
FunctionalTestLayer that inherits from some BasicTestLayer, the tests
that use the basic test layer will be executed before the functional
test layer ones.
If there's no inher
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Andreas Jung wrote:
>> I get the following failure while running the Zope 2.12 tests:
>
>> aj...@suxmac2:~/sandboxes/Zope-2.12/2.12 bin/alltests
>> Test-module import failures:
>
>> Module: zope.traversing.tests.test
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Jung wrote:
> I get the following failure while running the Zope 2.12 tests:
>
> aj...@suxmac2:~/sandboxes/Zope-2.12/2.12 bin/alltests
> Test-module import failures:
>
> Module: zope.traversing.tests.test_vhosting
>
> Traceback
I get the following failure while running the Zope 2.12 tests:
aj...@suxmac2:~/sandboxes/Zope-2.12/2.12 bin/alltests
Test-module import failures:
Module: zope.traversing.tests.test_vhosting
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
"/Users/ajung/.buildout/eggs/zope.traversing-3.7.0-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2008, at 8:37 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
>> The change under discussion about testing is whether or not to remove
>> the test requirements as part of 'install_requires' in setup.py. Some
>> folks have objecctions to using the
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 16:33 +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Note also that Christian Theune also started a major
> cleanup/reorganization of the testrunner some months ago. Christian
> can tell you more about the status and future plans for further
> cleanups.
The code became more readable in many
Hi there,
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>> I discovered today I think the time is ripe for a "blank buffer" rewrite
>> of the testrunner: it is so full of "twisty passages" that my
>> confidence in its own internal correctness is seriously depleted.
On Sep 3, 2008, at 8:37 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> The change under discussion about testing is whether or not to remove
> the test requirements as part of 'install_requires' in setup.py. Some
> folks have objecctions to using the setuptools-provided
> 'tests_require'
> field, although I think t
Benji York wrote at 2008-7-3 17:44 -0400:
>On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 17:22 -0400, Benji York wrote:
>>> I'd like to 1) remove the layer tear-down mechanism entirely, and 2)
>>> make (almost) all layers run in a subprocess.
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We could use layers as a hint to create subprocesses, but should split
> up layers if they are too large to fit the X/N rule (maybe with a margin
> of a few percent to avoid splits for single or few tests).
It probably
On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 09:18 +0200, Christian Theune wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 17:22 -0400, Benji York wrote:
> > I'm working on making the zope.testing test runner run tests in
> > parallelized subprocesses. The option will likely be spelled -j N,
> > where N is the maximum number of
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 17:22 -0400, Benji York wrote:
> I'm working on making the zope.testing test runner run tests in
> parallelized subprocesses. The option will likely be spelled -j N,
> where N is the maximum number of processes.
Getting back to the idea about parallelizing on a per-test
Hi Benji,
I've read the whole thread to date but thought I'd reply here...
Benji York wrote:
I'm working on making the zope.testing test runner run tests in
parallelized subprocesses. The option will likely be spelled -j N,
where N is the maximum number of processes.
Cool :-)
But please defa
Hello Benji,
+1
for keeping the default as no subprocess and keeping the teardown.
The others already said the reasons.
--
Best regards,
Adam GROSZERmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Quote of the day:
It is a great mistake to suppose that God is only, or even chiefly, co
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 05:22:11PM -0400, Benji York wrote:
> I'm working on making the zope.testing test runner run tests in
> parallelized subprocesses. The option will likely be spelled -j N,
> where N is the maximum number of processes.
That's wonderful news!
> I have it basically working, b
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 17:22 -0400, Benji York wrote:
>> I'd like to 1) remove the layer tear-down mechanism entirely, and 2)
>> make (almost) all layers run in a subprocess.
>>
>> I want to do #1 because it would simplify
Hi Benji
> Betreff: [Zope-dev] Test runner: layers, subprocesses, and tear down
[... ]
> #2 will add some process start-up overhead, but it'll only be
> one more process than is already started (and any
> reasonably-sized test corpus already starts several processes
&g
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 17:22 -0400, Benji York wrote:
> I'm working on making the zope.testing test runner run tests in
> parallelized subprocesses. The option will likely be spelled -j N,
> where N is the maximum number of processes.
>
> I have it basically working, but have noticed a couple odd
I'm working on making the zope.testing test runner run tests in
parallelized subprocesses. The option will likely be spelled -j N,
where N is the maximum number of processes.
I have it basically working, but have noticed a couple odd corners of
the test runner that I'd like to clean up. They may
Does anybody else see this on a fresh checkout of the zope 2.10 branch?
I think it's pretty new; I had a checkout last week where I didn't get
any test failures.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/tmp/z2branches/2.10 $ python test.py -s zope.component
Running tests at level 1
Running unit tests:
Running:
.
Hi,
starting with zope.app.publisher 3.5.0a3 I geht isolation problems with
tests. When the second functional test layer is reached the menus are
empty. I don't know why this is but I'm pretty sure ist has todo with
the checkin below.
On 2007-11-27 20:59:01 +0100, Juergen Kartnaller
<[EM
Hi,
I've started working on the integration of Zope 3.4 and ZODB 3.8 into
Zope 2.11.
I have a breaking test on ZClasses that I couldn't understand. I'd
appreciate any help.
The error is a max. recursion of an object that tries to load its state
and something goes off. Here's a part of the traceb
I've seen the following tests fail today, after updating Zope 2.8
branch for all variants of BTrees:
==
ERROR: testUpdateFromPersistentMapping
(BTrees.tests.testBTrees.IIBucketTest)
> [Martijn Faassen]
> > Odd, I don't get any failures, and Stefan Holek cannot report them
> > either. Did these get resolved since then? It looks like the merge got
> > checked in, right?
>
> The merge was checked in. I'm doing the ZODB 3.4 integration on a new
> branch. We suspect Brian's fail
[Brian Lloyd]
>> I did a merge from the five-integration branch to the head
>> in a local sandbox, and got the following test failures -
>> anyone know anything about them?
[Martijn Faassen]
> Odd, I don't get any failures, and Stefan Holek cannot report them
> either. Did these get resolved since
Brian Lloyd wrote:
I did a merge from the five-integration branch to the head
in a local sandbox, and got the following test failures -
anyone know anything about them?
Odd, I don't get any failures, and Stefan Holek cannot report them
either. Did these get resolved since then? It looks like the
I did a merge from the five-integration branch to the head
in a local sandbox, and got the following test failures -
anyone know anything about them?
Brian Lloyd[EMAIL PROTECTED]
V.P. Engineering 540.361.1716
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com
Running unit tests fro
test
--
Zope Corporation
Software Engineer
(540) 361-1700
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-anno
are we here in mail.zope.org
--
Robin Becker
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
h
My golly are we back up?
--
Andy McKay.
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 8:06 AM
Subject: [Zope-dev]
test
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zop
In the following code either I am using dictionaries wrong or I'm
missing something with ExtensionClass in general. Can someone explain
the best way for me to map from one instance to another?
I have tried searching Zope and Python mailing lists and resources for
an answer to this question but h
At 10:51 PM 6/20/00 +0800, mike wrote:
>"Phillip J. Eby" wrote:
>> example. Think of someone creating a Session subclass called "Shopping
>> Cart", with methods for viewing, checking out, adding/deleting items, etc.
>> Or, if they have many subsystems which want to share the same Session
>> objec
"Phillip J. Eby" wrote:
>
> At 08:58 PM 6/19/00 +0800, mike wrote:
> >
> >http://www.zope.org/Members/RainDog/ZSession/ZSession-0.0.2.tar.gz/view
> >
> >Comments?
> >
>
> Now that I've had a chance to really look at this (while tracking down one
> of the bugs you found), I do have a few comments
At 08:58 PM 6/19/00 +0800, mike wrote:
>
>http://www.zope.org/Members/RainDog/ZSession/ZSession-0.0.2.tar.gz/view
>
>Comments?
>
Now that I've had a chance to really look at this (while tracking down one
of the bugs you found), I do have a few comments.
First, nice job... It's a good adaptation
http://www.zope.org/Members/RainDog/ZSession/ZSession-0.0.2.tar.gz/view
Comments?
Mike
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://list
68 matches
Mail list logo
