What is the currently suggested way of using pytest/nose in web2py? This current thread is of a WIP script, and I have already seen better approaches, I've seen aome pytest-like and/or nose-like tests of web2py itself within it's folders, and there was a comment in the shell-script that this should work in both nose and pytest. I've also taken a look at many implementations of devising environments for testing in web2py. But these seems to be quite a lot of diereses-fragmentation on this issue... The most promising option I found was the one in the old web2py_utils project, but it's really old and this project seems to have died a long time ago... right?
It seems that there is a growing need for a centralized place presenting a canonical way using nose/pytest and devising an optimal environment for testing using them. It should also be pythonic, and not a shell-script one might accidently stumble across... Or a corpse-of-a-project that one might find himself arrive to somehow.... Or some varied fragmented experiments diapered around... Where is the "ggod stuff"? Where is the "best-practice"? Where is the "batteries-included"? This should be trivial, nowadays, and be well documented in the book or somewhere... The web-interface-doc-test is not a viable option for large-scale applications - it is more and more becoming considered as un-profetional to treat doc-tests as an option... They should reserve their original purpose - making sure you don't document your code with buggy examples.... But that's it.... As for the standard-library unittest/2... It's almost mid-2013 - let's move along, shell we? But even for that, there should be some centralized documentation of a canonical practice... -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
