Craig, Thanks for doing this huge lift. Not all heroes wear capes!
I'm still concerned about using the SWIG bindings to test the C API because subtle defects in the wrappers could hide deeper bugs and wish there were more direct tests, but RFC 72 is a big improvement. I use pytest in most of my projects and like how it reduces the friction for writing tests. It uses a lot of magic, which some Python developers don't like, and so it isn't necessarily *the way* to test in Python. I think there is a small risk that the hard to understand patterns of the home-grown approach could be replaced by hard to understand fixtures in a pytest approach. The example shown in the RFC, for example: is making a fixture for every gdal-bin program or adding checker fixtures that make multiple asserts patterns that will help or hurt long term? I'm not super concerned, just want to point out that pytest isn't a panacea and doesn't default to the golden path of testing. Thanks again! On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 4:49 PM Craig de Stigter < craig.destig...@koordinates.com> wrote: > Hi, > > This is a call for discussion on RFC 72: Update autotest suite to use > pytest > > https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc72_pytest > > Summary: > > The document proposes and describes conversion of the existing Python > autotest suite to use the ​pytest framework. > > Using pytest provides significant productivity gains for writing, reading > and debugging python tests, compared with the current home-grown approach. > > -- > > Please submit feedback soon, as we'd like to have this merged in time for > the imminent GDAL 2.4.0 RC if possible. > > Thanks > Craig de Stigter > > > _______________________________________________ > gdal-dev mailing list > gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev -- Sean Gillies
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
