On 7/12/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unless you can make a particularly convincing case for using an alternative, based upon some deficiency of unittest that will adversely affect django testing, I'm inclined to stick with whats in the standard library.
If the powers-that-be want to override on this issue and declare some alternative testing framework, feel free to let me know.
That said, I am not aiming to set up a django testing framework that actively impedes the use of py.test or nose; if there is anything we can do to make the two compatible/complimentary, let me know.
Russ %-)
Just as an additional data point, or point of discussion or whatever,
...
In summary, it's py.test without the magic, plus support for plugins
that can be used to change test selection, running and reporting.
Unless you can make a particularly convincing case for using an alternative, based upon some deficiency of unittest that will adversely affect django testing, I'm inclined to stick with whats in the standard library.
If the powers-that-be want to override on this issue and declare some alternative testing framework, feel free to let me know.
That said, I am not aiming to set up a django testing framework that actively impedes the use of py.test or nose; if there is anything we can do to make the two compatible/complimentary, let me know.
Russ %-)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
