but who's gonna hack the "emulator"? we barely provide for duplicity as it is. demanding one from backend dev's might discourage early on!
..ede On 16.04.2014 14:49, Michael Terry wrote: > Well, for python libraries that the backends use, I imagine we can provide a > fake version of that library. So we never have to have an account or hit the > network. > -mt > > > On 16 April 2014 04:28, <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > On 15.04.2014 19:21, Michael Terry wrote: > > > > I'm particularly interested in thinking about ways to mock the remote > services needed by the backends. > > totally clueless here.. i see no way that we keep/have backend libraries > on the test machine and simulate an actual backend or even access a real > backend account! > > only way i can imagine it that we deal with backend testing within the > confines of duplicity. backends could contain triggers to simulate errors ( > specific error codes, broken connections ) but i wonder if that's worth the > effort. maybe we should stop at testing backend.py after all. > > some quick thought ..ede/duply.net <http://duply.net> > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team > <https://launchpad.net/%7Eduplicity-team> > Post to : [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team > <https://launchpad.net/%7Eduplicity-team> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
