On 25 Aug 2007, at 19:01 , Jim Fulton wrote:
On Aug 23, 2007, at 8:37 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
We have 100+ packages that make up what used to be distributed as
"Zope3". We have numerous more packages in svn.zope.org. Most of
them are developed, released and distributed individually. We like
to think this is a good thing (I certainly do). But currently we
have a bit of a chaos [2]. It's not bad, but I fear without some
guidance, it'll get worse.
Christian Theune recently wrote a document [1] in which he
outlined how we should get to a development process and what
topics it should touch. This document is very hands-on and
describes actions that should be taken to reach these goals. I've
taken the liberty to jump ahead and write down some current
practices:
http://svn.zope.org/*checkout*/Sandbox/philikon/foundation/
maintaining-software.txt
This is a great start. Thanks!
A few small points:
- I'm going to mostly stay out of the style debate except to note
that the Zope style guide builds on PEP8. It doesn't disagree with
it much accept in the case of some naming, due to the fact that the
ZSG made a commitment before PEP8 did.
It seems to me that we should certainly reference the ZSG in the
guide. Contrary to previous comments, I do believe that the ZSG could
use some cleanup and could be made more concise. Since the
differences mostly seem to revolve around method and function naming,
I'm almost inclined to leave it open to the package authors whether
to choose camelCase (ZSG) or under_score (PEP8) naming, as long as
it's consistent within a pacakge.
- On doctest, there should be greater emphasis on there being 2
kinds of tests, executable documentation and other tests. I think
there is value in executable documentation, but it should be
documentation first. A lot of our doctests that we think/wish are
documentation are not very good documentation. We need to do a
better job of this.
I do feel strongly that even non-documentation tests should be
written in a fairly literate way with documentation of the test
itself, I strongly prefer the doctest format for these tests, but
I don't want to be an evil dictator about it. I suggest that
classic unit tests can be used for new tests, but *only* if they
are well documented. I've never seen a classic unit test that was,
but I'm open to the theoretical possibility. :)
BTW, I've seen poorly documented doctests too.
Thanks for the feedback. I've improved the "Automated tests" section
accordingly. Could you check it again and see if I captured your
comments right?
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
