Previously Dalius Dobravolskas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Wichert Akkerman <wich...@wiggy.net> wrote: > > > Previously Dalius Dobravolskas wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Roberto Allende <ro...@menttes.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > My motivation is to write a unit testing but even in other cases it > > > > could have sense to use a controller function isolated. Or at least in > > > > my case, this is the only restriction. > > > > > > If your intention is unit-testing do it Pylons way: > > > http://wiki.pylonshq.com/display/pylonsdocs/Unit+Testing > > > > That is not unit testing, that is functional testing. > > What's the difference except that your way might be a little bit > more-efficient (like 20%)? I have seen several different ways of > unit-testing pylons applications but basically they just help to do the > same. What makes unit-testing functional testing in your opinion?
I run the controller method in isolation, which means: - no other middleware that influences the result - I can put stuf in c before I call the controller method, and introspect c afterwards - no paste.fixture or WebTest influencing the result with a unittest you want to call something in isolation, without anything else being present. This is the only way to do that. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <wich...@wiggy.net> It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
