On Oct 7, 2015 6:58 AM, "Ionel Cristian Mărieș" <cont...@ionelmc.ro> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Thomas Güttler < guettl...@thomas-guettler.de> wrote: >> >> I thought "easy_install" is a very old and deprecated method. > > > Indeed it is. That why people put all sorts of custom "test" commands in their setup.py to work around the deficiencies of the "test > " command setuptools provides. So we end up with lots of variations of "how to use pytest to run tests via `setup.py test`", "how to use pip to install deps, instead of what `setup.py test` normally does" and so on. > > If you're gonna implement a test runner in your setup.py you might as well use a supported and well maintained tool: tox. > >> >> Why not use `setup.py test`? > > > Because: > > 1. There's Tox, which does exactly that, and more. It's maintained. It gets features.
Tox rocks. * detox can run concurrent processes: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/detox/ * TIL timeit.default_timer measures **wall time** by default and not CPU time: concurrent test timings are likely different from linear tests run on an machine with load > 2. The "test" command will install the "test_requires" dependencies as eggs. You will end up with multiple versions of the same eggs right in your source checkout. * is there no way around this? * is this required / spec'd / fixable? > 3. The "test" command will install the "test_requires" dependencies with easy_install. That means wheels cannot be used. would it be possible to add this to wheel? as if, after package deployment, in-situ tests are no longer relevant. (I think it wise to encourage TDD here) > 4. Because the builtin "test" command is so bare people tend to implement a custom one. Everyone does something slightly different, and slightly buggy. * README.rst test invocation examples (all, subset, one) * Makefile (make test; [vim] :make) * python setup.py nosetests http://nose.readthedocs.org/en/latest/api/commands.html * python setup.py [test] https://pytest.org/latest/goodpractises.html#integrating-with-setuptools-python-setup-py-test > 5. There's no established tooling that relies on `setup.py test`. There isn't even a test result protocol like TAP [1] for it. Why use something so limited and outdated if there's no practical advantage? * xUnit XML: https://westurner.org/wiki/awesome-python-testing#xunit-xml ``` xUnit XML⬅ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XUnit https://nose.readthedocs.org/en/latest/plugins/xunit.html http://nosexunit.sourceforge.net/ https://pytest.org/latest/usage.html#creating-junitxml-format-files https://github.com/xmlrunner/unittest-xml-reporting https://github.com/zandev/shunit2/compare/master...jeremycarroll:master ``` * TAP protocol > > [1] https://testanything.org/ > > Thanks, > -- Ionel Cristian Mărieș, http://blog.ionelmc.ro > > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
