I finished the comparison of py.test and nose. Links to the detailed results and code are at the end of this email.
Comments and/or suggestions would be appreciated. Let the discussion commence! Tim Executive Summary: After a detailed comparison of the two tools, I think that py.test would be the better choice for a test tool for AutoQA. Py.test has better documentation, more detailed output on test failure, more customizability without resorting to custom plugins and better support for test isolation. While we would not be able to leverage as much local experience with py.test, better documentation should lead us towards finding solutions in that documentation instead of having to rely on the experience of others to find those solutions. Detailed Results: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tflink/AutoQA_nose_pytest_comparison py.test code: https://github.com/tflink/autoqa-devel/tree/pytest nose code: https://github.com/tflink/autoqa-devel/tree/nose NOTE: I didn't see a point in merging this to the fedorahosted repo since its just a proof of concept. This can be done if desired, though. _______________________________________________ autoqa-devel mailing list [email protected] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/autoqa-devel
