On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 15:15 -0400, Daniel Holth wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:36 PM, holger krekel <hol...@merlinux.eu> wrote: > > Hi Nick, > > > > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 21:36 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >> After preliminary reviews by Donald and Daniel, I have now pushed the > >> first complete draft of the JSON-based metadata 2.0 proposal to > >> python.org > >> > >> PEP 426 (metadata 2.0): http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0426/ > > > > After a first quick read i am wondering if i missed something > > with respect to test tools. There are some fields which specify > > dependencies required for running tests, but there is nothing that > > would tell which test runner to use, which test command to invoke, > > or am i missing something? > > > > Basically i am wondering how PEP426 could be useful/used by tox. > > best, > > The first thing we might do is to have setuptools expose its > test_suite argument as "extensions" : { "setuptools": { "test_suite": > "callable.name" } }.
The way tox specifies testing is to allow arbitrary test commands not just unittest test suites. People use py.test, make and whatnot to run tests. > I think we need the next version of the metadata or sdist 2.0 to > really do a better job than just running "setup.py test"; right now > the tests usually only make sense in the context of an unpacked sdist. > Input appreciated. We certainly don't want to advocate using "setup.py" for running tests as we want to get way from the neccessity for this file to exist (correct me if i am wrong with this presumption). The metadata should be rich enough to support tools like tox to perform the testing, much like pip for installations. holger _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
