On Nov 9, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Nov 9, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
Yawn. IMO, the test command in setuptools is a waste of time,
because it doesn't work with anything else.
It runs all the tests, even the doctests, if thats what you
mean. See the "additional_tests" hair in the test modules.
My point is that the meta data you added to the setup.py only
works with setup.py. It isn't accessible to any other test
runners. I shouldn't have yawned. It is significant that the
tests work. :) I just don't find this way of running the tests to
be useful. The first time I work on this package, I'll add a
buildout.cfg so I can use the Zope test runner. At that point,
I'll have to deal with these extra requirements in another way
(which is no big deal).
What if we caused setup.py to read a buildout.cfg for the
tests_require package names and we passed these in as
tests_require= names? Would that make it all better?
Too complicated. :)
Again, this isn't a big deal. You've done the hard work of figuring
out what's required. You even reduced the requirements. I can't ask
for more. In fact, from what you've written below, nothing there
aren't any extra requirements if the Zope test runner is used, as it
will already cause zope.testing to be required.
zope.interface is a real requirement. It is already in
test_requires.
Over time, we need to clean up the transaction tests so they
don't use ZODB.
Yeah, given that we're name this thing "transaction", it's an
actually an immediate requirement.
If you are going to spend the time, then, uh, sure. ;) Seriously,
while I would love to see this cleaned up, I don't think I would
consider this super urgent. I guess that depends on competing
priorities.
I just deleted the sections of the test_transaction doctests that
depended on ZODB. They were actually not really testing
transactions, they were testing persistent object behavior. I'll
try to put them back in a form within ZODB proper, as the test
really are testing ZODB functionality, not transaction functionality.
Way cool.
There's only one test that uses anything that can't be mocked up
in the transaction package (it uses an actual MappingStorage and
a DB) itself. It also happens to be the one that fails right
now; I haven't tried to understand it yet.
Gah. BTW, if you haven't already, you should check for
transaction tests lurking in the other ZODB packages.
Good idea.
In the meantime, I've gotten rid of 'zope.transaction' and I've
created a new top-level 'transaction' package at http://
svn.zope.org/transaction/ . All its tests pass. It depends only
on 'zope.interface', and requires 'zope.testing' for running the
tests.
Yay!
I think you are pretty close to done -- if not done. Much thanks. I
wish there was a way to state anti-requirements in setuptools. Then
we could say that transaction had an anti-requirement for ZODB3 < 3.9.
BTW, it would be nice to now remove the transaction package from the
ZODB trunk and make it a dependency.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
Zope Corporation
_______________________________________________
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/
ZODB-Dev mailing list - [email protected]
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
