On 7/12/06, Russell Keith-Magee <[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. >
Well, I'll step in and give my own +1 (for whatever it's worth) to the use of nose. I've used nose a good deal in the past, and am completely enamored with it. One of the fantastic things about it is that it wraps around unittest, so it's compatible with any unittest suites people might have. Of course, you just using unittest by itself also gets you that, but using nose will save you re-implementing a whole lot of stuff. I'd suggest at least taking a look at it. All the relevant info about it (and some pertinent examples) are pretty concisely described on the project's main page (http://somethingaboutorange.com/mrl/projects/nose/) Jay P. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
